The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s rejection of correction of KRW 1,157,347,836 of corporate tax for the business year 2015 against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2017 shall be revoked.

A. On April 2009, the Plaintiff owned 50% of the outstanding shares of * Alkhovas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as **** Alkh's (hereinafter referred to as 'Akh'), and **** Alkh' (hereinafter referred to as 'Akh', ** Alkh', ** * Alkh', etc.). The Plaintiff owned 100% of the outstanding shares of **** Alkh's, etc. ***** Alkh's, etc.).* as the representative director of the Plaintiff around that time.

B. On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 8.5% per annum * Alkhovah’s 4 billion won per annum, and 1.5% per annum on May 25, 2009 * 3 billion per annum on May 25, 2009 * 8.5% per annum. In addition, the Plaintiff sold the machinery owned by the Plaintiff in Alkh’s 2010 * KRW 915,750,000.

C. On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff sold **** 50% of the issued shares of Alkhovas Ma** Amh Ma* sold 35.87% of the Plaintiff’s issued shares to * Amh Ma* around November 2014. Accordingly, the special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act between the Plaintiff and * Alkh Mah Mah Mah Ma et al. was all extinguished.

D. As of the end of 2014, the details of the claims held by the Plaintiff against Alknuri, etc. are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the claims in this case”). Around July 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the claims in this case to 1.5 billion won to a stock company or venture business (* AD business), and the disposal losses incurred by the assignment of claims in this case (i.e., KRW 5,786,739,178 (i.e., KRW 7,286,739,178; KRW 1.5 billion) upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2015, was excluded from deductible expenses and disposed of as other outflow from the company (hereinafter referred to as “disposition losses in this case”). The total amount of the balance of the divided loans and the outstanding amounts ** 3,610,000,000,63,694,6963,669).

Recognition interest 176,320,00 176,320,000 in the gross income 5,510,000,000 860,989,178 915,750,00 7,286,739,178 (unit: source)

E. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that, as at the time of the disposition, the special relation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff under the Corporate Tax Act was extinguished, the instant disposal loss should be recognized as losses because it was due to the sale of general property. The Plaintiff filed a request for correction seeking the refund of KRW 1,157,347,836 of the corporate tax for the business year 2015. However, the Defendant did not give any notice within two months of the notification period under Article 45-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

F. On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant rejection disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on June 14, 2018.

Each entry in Gap's 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and Gap's 9-1, 2;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) and u300 Plaintiff and ** Alkhalian, etc. extinguished on or around November 2014, and the Plaintiff disposed of the instant claim on or around July 2015. Therefore, the instant claim was not a provisional payment for a related party at the time of disposal, and thus, it is not subject to non-deductible under Article 19-2(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”). However, based on Article 11-9-2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provision”), the Defendant included the instant claim in gross income for the 2014 business year in which the special relationship between the Plaintiff and Alkhalian, etc. was extinguished, and rendered the instant refusal disposition on this premise.

2) Article 15(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13555, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”) delegates only the scope and classification of profits under Article 15(1) to be prescribed by the Presidential Decree with respect to “gross income with an increase in net assets”. Since the instant provision provides that where there is no increase in net assets, the scope of gross income is expanded beyond the scope of delegation by the parent law and thus, is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law. Accordingly, the instant rejection disposition is rendered based on the instant provision that is null and void, and thus, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Tax laws and regulations on temporary payments without business affairs

Article 34(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount of bonds which cannot be recovered due to certain reasons, such as the debtor's bankruptcy, among bonds held by a domestic corporation (hereinafter referred to as "deductible expenses") shall be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for the relevant business year: Provided, That Articles 34(3)2 and 28(1)4(b) of the former Corporate Tax Act and the main text of Article 53(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that bad debts shall not be included in deductible expenses for the amount of loans that the corporation has paid to a related party without connection with the corporation's business shall not be included in deductible expenses. Article 61(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that such bad debts shall not be included in deductible expenses for the disposal loss of bonds equivalent to the provisional payments that are not related to the corporation's business shall be limited to the amount of bad debts if it is impossible to recover claims due to the occurrence of a cause for bad debts to the related party regardless of its business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7262.

2) Circumstances leading to the enactment of the instant provision

(1) General Rules of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15967, Dec. 31, 1998) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15967, Dec. 31, 1998) provides that, when the amount equivalent to the provisional payment, etc. and interest accrued from financial transactions with a related party is not recovered until the special relation is extinguished, the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by

In other words, if the "provisional payment, etc. to a related party" is not recovered by the time of termination of the special relationship, it is provided that the "provisional payment, etc. to a related party" shall be subject to the disposition of income, and the exceptional reasons are the exception.

‘Recovery** a case where there is a justifiable reason?', ‘a case where it is objectively proved that the collection will be made', and ‘a case where it is obvious that the collection will not be made'.

② The tax authority imposed a comprehensive income tax on the specially related person after disposing of the relevant bonds as bonus for the specially related person at the time of termination of the special relationship, and giving notice of change in the amount of income. The Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5611 Decided February 8, 2007 ruled that the General Rules of the Corporate Tax Act only applies to the internal administrative rules of the tax authority, and the common rules itself cannot be a legitimate ground for taxation, and that the claim for the loan to the specially related person is not collected until the special relation terminates * the collection of the loan claim against the specially related person * the unclaimed act does not fall under the object of the avoidance of wrongful calculation under Article 88(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act *

③ On February 18, 2010, Article 11 subparag. 9-2 (a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) was newly established under Article 11 subparag. 9-2 (a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. This is a legislative enactment of the general provisions of the Corporate Tax Act as it is, unless there is any justifiable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, that is, collection** collection of provisional payment, etc. by the date of termination of special relations ** (a) and interest of provisional

3) Whether the instant provision is invalid because it deviates from the limit of delegated legislation

A) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds. However, where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through mutual interpretation between the laws and regulations, the tax law share

Inasmuch as it does not undermine legal stability and predictability, it is permissible to conduct a combined interpretation that takes into account the legislative purport and purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 2008). The Enforcement Decree or Enforcement Rule of the Act cannot modify or supplement the rights and obligations of individuals or provide new details that are not provided for in the Act, unless otherwise delegated by the Act. However, the Enforcement Decree or Enforcement Rule of the Act does not exceed the bounds of the parent law’s regulation if the contents of the Enforcement Rule of the Act or the Enforcement Rule of the Act are merely the matters that can be prescribed in the interpretation of the parent law by systematically and systematically examining the legislative purport of the parent law and all of the relevant provisions, or is intended to embody them based on the purport of the provisions of the parent law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1750, Aug.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the developments leading up to the introduction of the instant provision, the language and text, form and purport, and the relationship between the instant provision and the pertinent provision, the instant provision cannot be deemed to violate the principle of no taxation without law beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law.

① Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act defines profits as "amount of profits accruing from transactions which increase the net assets of the relevant corporation, except as otherwise provided for in this Act," and Article 15(3) of the same Act delegates matters necessary to determine the scope and classification of profits under paragraph (1) of the same Article, such as the amount of income accruing from transactions which provide goods or services to other persons, and the amount of other economic benefits which belong to the relevant corporation, and Article 15(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act delegates to the Presidential Decree "necessary matters, such as the scope and classification of profits." Thus, it should be interpreted to the purport that if necessary matters concerning the scope of broad and unclear profits, the period of attribution, etc. can be determined flexibly by delegation to subordinate statutes.

② It is also difficult to view that Article 15(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act is an exception provision under paragraph (1) and only a limited list of earnings, which is deemed a transaction that increases the net assets of a corporation by an Act, not a transaction that increases the net assets of the corporation.

No. 1 provides that "where securities are purchased from an individual who is a related party at a price lower than the market price under paragraph 2 of the same Article, the amount equivalent to the difference between the market price and the purchase price shall be regarded as the gross income. However, since the low price of assets is a transaction that increases the net assets of a corporation, the above provision must be regarded as having made clear that only the gross income accrued from the transaction that takes over the securities from an individual who is a related party among the low price of assets."

In addition, subparagraph 3 of Article 100-18(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "amount of income distributed by a domestic corporation according to the special taxation for the same company shall be regarded as gross income. However, as a domestic corporation naturally increases net assets according to the allocation of income, the relevant amount shall be treated as gross income regardless of the existence of the above provision.

As can be seen, Article 15(2)1 and 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act merely merely provides for matters falling under gross income as a matter of principle. Thus, Article 15(2)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act cannot be construed as a provision that only only lists “gains without an increase in net assets” unlike Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the instant provision cannot be construed as a separate delegation basis under Article 15(2) of

There is no problem that it did not take any question.

③ In light of the developments leading up to the enactment of the instant provision, in cases where a corporation provided provisional payments irrespective of its business affairs and did not make efforts to recover claims due to a cause of bad debt, which makes it impossible to recover claims, the instant provision purported that the business year to which the loss would accrue shall be deemed the business year to which the date on which the special relationship between the corporation and the specially related party ceases to exist belongs. In other words, the instant provision does not aim at imposing taxes by deeming the pertinent amount as the Plaintiff’s profits, in which it is not related to the corporation’s disposal of the said amount, by deeming the provisional payments, which are not recovered until the special relationship is extinguished, to be included in the gross income in the pertinent business year. Accordingly, the instant provision expands the scope of gross income

It cannot be seen that the above is extended.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.