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

A. BB industry corporation (hereinafter “B industry”) around December 22, 1998, according to the corporate prior agreement with the creditor financial institutions consisting of 14 financial institutions, such as Cho Ho Bank, etc. (hereinafter “the creditor financial institutions”), and decided to promote the merger of the Plaintiff and B B industry and to convert loans into equity investment of 00 won for BB industry by the creditor group.

B. On November 2, 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a merger contract with BB industry, and the Plaintiff merged BB industry, and BB industry agreed to convert 00 won out of the loan obligations against the claim group into equity investment in accordance with the above business improvement agreement.

C. On January 7, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a merger basic agreement between BB industry and the credit group to verify the above contents.

D. On January 12, 200, the Credit Group converted 000 won to 000 won per share of BB industry shares, and upon the merger of BB industry on March 15, 200 by Hobbbes, the Credit Group held 35,510,948 shares of the Plaintiff.

E. On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff entered into an additional arrangement with the claim group as follows.

F. On May 29, 2003, when the bond group used put options to put in place put options to the Plaintiff and requested the Plaintiff to purchase the instant shares at KRW 000 per share, which is the standard value, and the Plaintiff reached an agreement on May 30, 2003 that the Plaintiff would pay to the bond group an amount calculated as KRW 0,000 per share, which is the above standard value, while paying to the bond group an amount calculated as KRW 0,000 per share, and that “the amount between the bond group and the bond group,” purchased the instant shares at KRW 00 per share, which is the closing price of the Plaintiff’s stock exchange as of May 29, 2003, and paid as damages.

G. The Plaintiff reported and paid the corporate tax for the business year 2003 and calculated the amount of KRW 000 per share paid as the acquisition price of the instant shares as the acquisition price of its own shares, and the key amount paid as the compensation amount was calculated as miscellaneous loss, which is the cost and included in the calculation.

H. On March 11, 2009, the Defendant deemed that a series of transactions related to the shares in the instant case constituted a "capital transaction" as a share refund that dealt with the acquisition of treasury shares, and revised and notified the Plaintiff of the corporate tax (including additional tax) accrued for the business year 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in the instant case").

I. On May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, claimed a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and the said claim was dismissed on June 13, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s prohibition of acquiring the shares of listed companies and the principle of shareholder equality prevents the Plaintiff from implementing put option agreements to purchase the shares of this case at the standard value, and the Plaintiff purchased the shares of this case from the claim group with the intent to purchase them, and paid the amount at issue, which is the difference between the standard value and the market price, as damages, and the priority amount should be recognized as losses, separately from the acquisition value of the shares.

"(2) Even if all of the issues cannot be added to deductible expenses, and in light of the fact that the above-mentioned standard value is calculated by adding the interest amount to the debt-to-equity principal substantially, the amount of 000 won (=the base value of 000 won - the principal of the debt-to-equity swap) (i.e., the base value of 000 won - the principal of the debt-to-equity swap), which is the amount of the loan holder, shall be added to deductible expenses."

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the main argument

Article 4(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9898, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the provisions on the calculation of the amount of taxable income subject to corporate tax shall apply according to its substance, regardless of the names or forms of income, earnings, etc." It means that the tax base of corporate tax shall be substantially grasped by the parties concerned, and that the tax law shall be applied based on the name or form of the transaction of the corporation's assets and profits, and that the amount of its net assets should be calculated based on the actual amount of its own assets in calculation of taxable income of the corporate tax. It is not necessary to determine that the tax base of this case's corporate tax should be calculated on the basis of the following facts: The tax base of this case's corporate tax should be calculated on the basis of the entry of the account, and the amount of its own stocks should be calculated on the basis of the actual amount of its stock traded, regardless of its name.

(2) Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

In the event that the Plaintiff entered into an additional agreement with the credit group and entered into put options and call options agreements with the Plaintiff, it was confirmed that the credit group traded the instant stocks under the options agreement with the Plaintiff, and the amount calculated by adding the amount calculated at a certain ratio from the conversion into investment to the payment date of the purchase price of stocks to the total amount of the stock. However, as seen in the above paragraph (1) above, as long as the instant stock transaction between the Plaintiff and the credit group took place as part of the capital reduction procedure by the method of stock retirement, it cannot be deemed as interest expenses only on the ground that the standard value is calculated. Furthermore, according to each of the statements in subparagraphs in subparagraphs 3 and 4 above, the credit group should be deemed as dividend income not the interest income from the exercise of put options while reporting and paying the corporate tax for the business year 2003, and it can be recognized that this part of the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.