2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed corporate tax of 11,100,170 won on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015; corporate tax of 30,257,750 won for the business year 201; corporate tax of 27,579,830 won for the business year 2012; corporate tax of 26,66,240 won for the business year 2013; imposition of interest income of 6,270,000 won for the business year 2010; imposition of interest income of 13,343,00 won for the business year 201; imposition of interest income of 31,086,00 won for the business year 2013; imposition of interest income of 22,483,720 won for the business year 2013; imposition of income tax of 3,719,68 won for the business year 2013; imposition of income tax of 2013; imposition of income tax of 37196,20.

가. 원고는 제천시 백운면 @@2로 1295-14에서 주류 도매업을 영위하는 법인이

(c)

B. A determination that the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from November 24, 2014 to January 2, 2015

Section 1. The Plaintiff’s shares of bbable beer of a Aa joint stock company (hereinafter referred to as “a joint stock company”)

The subrogation has been made after the joint and several surety for the credit payment obligations for the company (hereinafter referred to as bbal beer).

(6) Since the plaintiff's 217,70,00 won should be included in the calculation of entertainment expenses by 10 or less as entertainment expenses, 217,032,892 won exceeding the limit of entertainment expenses shall be deemed as entertainment expenses, 20,000 won shall be included in the calculation of the income amount for each business year (hereinafter referred to as "markets ①"), 200,000 won shall be included in the calculation of the income amount for each business year, 30,000 won shall be excluded from the calculation of the income amount for each business year, 40,000 won shall be included in the calculation of the income amount for each business year (hereinafter referred to as "20,000 won shall be included in the calculation of the income amount for each business year, 164,929,952 won shall be excluded from the 50,000 won borrowed from the 50,000 won borrowed from the 10,000,000 won shall be excluded from the 10.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on March 2, 2015, and (b) on March 2, 2015, and (c) on corporate tax of 14,35,980 for the business year

Corporate tax of 2011 34,365,780 won, corporate tax of 35,401,840 won, and 2013

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 31,643,540 for the business year 201, the interest income tax of KRW 270,00 for the year 201, the interest income tax of KRW 13,343,00 for the year 201, the interest income tax of KRW 31,086,00 for the year 201, the interest income tax of KRW 22,483,720 for the year 2012, the imposition of the interest income tax of KRW 13,069,668 for the year 2010, the imposition of the interest income tax of KRW 10,81,81,86 for the year 20,81, and KRW 79,787,946 for the year 2012, and KRW 86,312,996 for the year 2013.

D. The Plaintiff’s disposition on May 21, 2015, excluding the disposition imposing interest income tax of this case on the Defendant.

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against A, the said application was dismissed on July 7, 2015. Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2015 regarding each of the above dispositions other than the imposition of interest income tax of this case. In relation to No. 115,00,000 won for a direct bond 10,000 won and paid to the Plaintiff by cC individually, not for a direct bond 10,000 won to the No. 11 of November 11, 2015, the Tax Tribunal decided to accept some of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the collection of provisional payment is legitimate, and the purport that the Plaintiff would exclude the interest rate for the provisional payment from the gross income and revise the tax base and tax amount.

E. Under the purport of the above ruling, the defendant around that time for 2010 corporate tax against the plaintiff

11,100,170 won, 30,257,750 won in the business year of 2011, 27,579,830 won in the business year of 2012, and 26,66,240 won in the business year of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition imposing corporate tax of this case as of March 2, 2015," each of the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case as of March 2, 2015, was reduced or corrected (hereinafter referred to as "disposition imposing corporate tax of this case"), and the notice of change in the amount of income was reduced or corrected as of March 2, 2010, 3,719,668 won in the business year of 201, 91, 91, 146 won in the business year of 2012, 72,197, 946 won in the business year of 2013, 78,832,96 won in each of the amount of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1, 5 to 7 (Ga number 1)

each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of interest income tax is legitimate

The defendant's claim for revocation of imposition of interest income tax in the lawsuit of this case shall go through the preceding trial procedure.

Since it was not unlawful, this safety defense is unlawful.

The Framework Act on National Taxes to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of interest income tax;

be subject to a request for examination or adjudgment under the preceding trial procedure (Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes);

According to the statements in Article 56 (2), Article 56 (2) 6 and 7, the Plaintiff is liable to impose the corporate tax of this case.

In the case of this case, only the disposition and the notice of change in the amount of income had been made through the procedure of the preceding trial.

It is recognized that the disposition of this case was not subject to the procedure of the previous trial. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case

Each request for cancellation of imposition of interest income tax is unlawful.

3. Whether the imposition of corporate tax in this case and the notice of change in income amount are legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Illegality of the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case (points ① through ③, ⑤, and related parties)

A) Key ①: The Plaintiff intended to take over the sales offices of Aaa joint agreement and requested for the supply of alcoholic beverages to BB beer around the end of September 2006, and Bb beer, Aa joint Bb beer, Bb beer, B.

The Plaintiff expressed his position on October 17, 2006 that payment guarantee for KRW 427,634,760 shall not be prior to the supply of alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff expressed his position on October 17, 2006 that the Plaintiff shall not supply alcoholic beverages.

b. The payment of all obligations owed to B. B. Doer was not guaranteed by the State,

From October 2006 to December 2012, 2013, a total of KRW 212,500,000 paid by subrogation is included in the calculation of income amount for each business year by including it as an operating right. Such guaranteed liability is legitimate in the calculation of income amount for each business year, since the Plaintiff continued to operate the same business as the existing business with the agreement of loyalty stockholders, and the Plaintiff actually repaid its obligation, and it is legitimate to include it as an operating right and treat it as a depreciation cost. Furthermore, even if it cannot be recognized as an operating right, the amount equivalent to the subrogated payment should be included in the expenses outside the business and included in the calculation of losses. Accordingly, it is unlawful that the Defendant excluded the amount equivalent to the depreciation of the subrogated payment

B) Key Class B: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the Korea Trade Agency (hereinafter “instant contract”) around December 2006 between Aaa and B; (b) the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 122,400,000 (680 x 2 x 90,000 per transaction partner) and the amount of acquisition of 185,497,200 (389,70 per transaction partner’s monthly average sales x 680 x 680 x 680 x 680 x 0.7) with the amount of 307,897,000 and less than 30 million ; (c) the depreciation amount of KRW 30,500,000, which was set as acquisition price and paid as 680,000 and appropriated as 305,070,000,000 won and the amount of depreciation calculated as losses for the reason that the remaining amount of acquisition and acquisition is not unlawful.

C) Key issue: The defendant did not actually recover the provisional payment from the representative member in the year 2010 through 2012, and thereafter, the recognized interest and the amount equivalent thereto was included in the calculation of the income amount, and the plaintiff was recovered in cash. Even if the recovery was not recognized, this part of the interest to be recognized as the provisional payment was collected in the calculation of the income amount.

Article 11 subparagraph 9-2 (proviso to Article 11-2), Article 6-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

In cases where property equivalent thereto is offered as security), subparagraph 3 (where a person holds a debt that may offset the relevant credit) and subparagraph 4 (where it is deemed justifiable to not recover it due to any other cause similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 3) are not to be included in the calculation of earnings as it falls under the grounds for exclusion from the calculation of earnings. Therefore, the Defendant’s inclusion of the amount equivalent to the interest recognized as the provisional payment in the calculation of the amount of income is unlawful.

D) Key issue: The subject who borrowed money from other obligees is not the plaintiff.

The defendant is a cc and a fff individual who is a representative member of the plaintiff's representative member.

cc and fffs after the Plaintiff borrowed money from its other creditors

The plaintiff denies the collection of provisional payments and the income of 56,100,304 won as to the recognition of provisional payments.

Since it was included in the calculation of the amount, it is illegal.

E) Issues 6: The defendant among other obligees zzz, yyy, and xx

Interest paid to the obligees on the ground that the address, resident registration number, etc. is not verifiable

25,251,500 won, excluding the withholding amount, among 39,475,000 won, shall be excluded from deductible expenses in calculating the income amount.

cc and fffs, not the plaintiff, the subject who borrowed money from the above obligees.

In light of this, it is illegal.

F) On the other hand, the defendant did not submit a voluntary submission from the plaintiff during the tax investigation process.

Money transfer payment through illegal means, such as searching the Plaintiff’s computer for business without permission (A)

No. 3 1) acquired the certificate, and based on this, the disposition of the corporate tax of this case (n.e., No. 6)

Since the defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of this case was unlawful.

2) Illegal notice of change in the income amount of this case (Dispute No. 3, 5, 6 related)

- 8-

The notice of change in the income amount of this case shall be set forth in Section 1(c) through (f) of the plaintiff's claim (A).

(5) The cancellation shall be made illegally for the same reason as in the case of paragraph (6).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case is illegal (points ① to ③, ⑤, ⑤ related to the issue)

A) As to the issue ①

business rights are the tradition, social credibility, conditions of location of the enterprise, and special

Modernity of manufacture and sale, including existence of manufacturing technology or special transaction relations, etc.

capacity to increase the profits of other companies operating the business greater than the profits of raised by them;

of this title, and entertainment expenses mean expenses paid by a corporation for a business;

the other party is a person related to the business and the purpose of the disbursement is to engage in the act of contact, etc.

It is to promote smooth progress by promoting friendship between business-related persons.

B. The term “public official” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7804, Apr. 9, 2004).

In addition to these legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5; and

The following circumstances, i.e., the father of afff, known in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:

aa A.a. B. B. B. B. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.C.

Alcoholic Beverages, which had been sold to the wife, aa joint alcoholic beverages on October 16, 2006

Since the sales license was revoked and it was no longer possible to operate the business, the contractual relationship is terminated.

It seems to be an example that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the proceeds by selling it as a goodwill, and ② the Plaintiff’s loyalty.

agreement with BBbeer to provide joint and several surety for credit payment obligations to Bbbeer owners of alcoholic beverages agreement

- 9-

Maaly, it is not expected that the profit has been increased through the normalization of management of the joint agreement, but rather

It appears that the primary purpose is to collect the claim, and therefore, it appears that the primary purpose is to collect the claim.

This is rather than the consideration of goodwill paid for Aaa and partnership, but not the supply of Bbbeer and alcoholic beverages

be deemed to have made payment to BB beer in return for signing or maintaining a contract.

Pursuant to examination rules (c) (fff as the representative member of the Plaintiff on December 17, 2013, following c)

During the tax investigation process, the Plaintiff stated to the same purport as the tax investigation process: (3) No. 3rd); and (4) The Plaintiff

aa. A. A. A. A. A. B. and equipment to be paid in return for such payment.

(A) No. 10, hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") shall be succeeded only to, and the contract for the transfer or acquisition.

(A) In Paragraph (2) of Article 5, the Plaintiff’s credit payment obligation for BB beer subject to Aa joint consent is changed.

The guarantee is a separate guarantee unrelated to the contract of this case.

Taking into account the overall consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff made a substitute payment for aaa joint liability.

for the creation or maintenance of a transaction with BBbeer, which shall be

As long as the amount of subrogation is viewed as entertainment expenses, it is reasonable to see it as entertainment expenses.

Therefore, under the premise that the payment by subrogation is entertainment expenses by the Defendant, the Corporate Tax Act

Pursuant to Article 25 (1), the excess of the entertainment expenses shall be excluded from deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year.

The plaintiff's assertion is legitimate, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) As to the issue ②

Written evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12, and Nos. 1 and 3

According to the purport of the body, the Plaintiff’s following content between Aahap Dong on December 20, 2006:

The fact that the contract of this case was entered into, thereafter, that the plaintiff was in total 299,964,779 won per Dong and Dong.

209 to 2013 in order to include this in operating rights.

- 10 -

�1�제1조(거래처 및 장비)

Aa.A. A.a. A.a. A.a. a.a.a.a. the Plaintiff’s trade partners and 680 others.

처에 보관된 냉장고 등 장비를 양도��양수한다.

��제2조(양도��양수금액)

양도��양수금액은 3억 원으로 한다.

��제3조(대금지급)

양도��양수대금지급은 원고의 자금사정에 따라 2008. 1. 1.부터 지급한다.

��제4조(신의성실)

Aa. Partnership does not engage in competitive business for a period of five years with the customer that it transfers to the Plaintiff, and aa.a. partnership

Aa joint co-operations in good faith with the business partners assigned by Aa joint Dong and the Plaintiff so that they may normally operate.

��제5조(특약사항)

1. The Plaintiff is bound to faithfully collect the credit account for aa joint agreement and deliver it to aa joint agreement.

② 본 양도��양수금액에는 원고가 bbb맥주에 aaa합동의 외상매입금을 변제하기로 한

The warranty confirms that it is a separate warranty that is unrelated to this contract.

278,581,658 Won is recognized as having been disposed of as deductible expenses by depreciation.

- - Future -

However, the statements and arguments of Gap Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12, Eul Nos. 1, 3, and 5

The following circumstances recognized by the purport of the body, i.e., the Plaintiff:

Data to prove the actual number of air conditioners accepted and the price thereof, etc. at all;

There are 680 documents concerning the air conditioners of customers as asserted by the Plaintiff, and the documents concerning the custody of each customer are stored.

there is no material to deem that this document was prepared and aaahap was in charge of it; and

- 11 -

During the process of in-houseless investigation, the plaintiff's acquisition price of 406,200 won per books of a cooling and 189 won.

(i) 7,00,000 won (i.e., 76,734,000 won (= 406,200 won) for calculation x (i.e., 406,200 won)

189) or 180 million won, plus 223,00,000,000,000

The total amount of KRW 300 million (=7,000,000 + 223,000,000) is the acquisition price for the goodwill; and

The calculation statement (Evidence B No. 5) was submitted to the Defendant; however, at the time of the contract of this case, the air conditioners

There is no basis to deem that the price per acceptance reaches KRW 406,200, and Article 5 of the Agreement.

According to paragraph (1), the account receivable of aa joint agreement shall be deposited and paid to aaa joint agreement by the Plaintiff.

aa joint sales agreement, such as a statement of the above calculation, is taken over by the plaintiff

(3) Article 12(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

the transfer business is permitted in addition to the transfer and acquisition assets in the process of transfer and acquisition of the business.

Legal status, such as authorization, convenient geographical conditions for business, business corruption, credit, reputation, and transactions;

If there is an amount acquired at a cost in consideration of business advantages, such as ships, etc., such amount is less than that;

only if the appraisal is made according to an urgent assessment method, it is recognized as an operating right, and the guidance of this case

aaaa partnership upon the revocation of a Aaa joint alcoholic beverage sales license before such

As the Plaintiff was placed in a situation where it is impossible to conduct the business, so the Plaintiff is an existing business partner in Aa joint agreement.

Exclusive Acceptance and Aahap does not engage in competitive business for five years;

In the conclusion of the contract of this case, the acquisition price calculated as the price is the normal transaction.

may be deemed to have been calculated in accordance with the appropriate method of assessment to the extent that the

4. Aaa partnership representative director, in particular, the Lee Dong-young, which has been a representative director

and ASEAN as the Plaintiff’s former and present representative cc and fff couple, both of which are the Plaintiff’s former and present representative c and Aa jointly with the Plaintiff

In the conclusion of the instant contract, the price for the goodwill is excessive under the intention of tax avoidance.

- 12-

(5) The transfer price of the contract of this case shall be determined by the contract of this case

any reference to the method of calculating the corporation or the content of the evaluation of the goodwill, etc.

In full view, the defendant's recognition as compensation for goodwill under the contract of this case

In the instant case where it is difficult to find out that KRW 77,00,000 is remarkably unreasonable, Gap 12

The reasonable price for the goodwill under the contract of this case is KRW 77,00,000 with only the statement of the certificate alone.

It is insufficient to recognize the excess of the facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the defendant

(a) Only KRW 73,159,813 of the depreciation costs following the consideration for operating rights of KRW 77,00,000;

Recognizing as deductible expenses and excluding KRW 73,159,813 out of KRW 278,581,658, which the Plaintiff first appropriated as deductible expenses;

amount of depreciation (=205,421,845 won (=278,581,658 won - 73,159,813 won) of income for each business year.

This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C) Regarding the issue third

Until then, the Plaintiff’s provisional payments to the representative members from 2010 to 2012

A’s evidence No. 13, which seems to be consistent with the fact that the recognized interest 164,929,952 was recovered in cash

The statements are difficult to believe in the light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The evidence mentioned above and the purport of the whole pleading are as follows.

The circumstances, i.e., ① the withdrawal of the representative employee’s account before the date on which the Plaintiff entered the account.

The plaintiff did not submit all the data on the source of funds, and ② the plaintiff's accounting report

(3) The plaintiff does not have any indication on the cash recovery of the interest to whom the recognition of the provisional payment was made.

(2) The amount of such provisional payment shall be the same as the provisional payment for the representative member after collecting the interest

The plaintiff was included in the plaintiff's assets, but it is rather recognized that the plaintiff actually paid the provisional payment.

interest may not be recovered from the representative member under the circumstances that indicate that the interest may not be recovered from the representative member

- 13-

in light of the facts above, the Plaintiff’s provisional payment to the representative members from 2010 to 2012

Recognizing that recognized interest 164,929,952 won was not recovered actually, it was disposed of as recovered.

It is reasonable to see that it is.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s interest on the recognition of the provisional payment is a party to a special relationship.

or cccc provides property equivalent to the claim to be recovered by it as security, or set-off by such claim.

(2) In the calculation of the income of a person who has an interest to recognize the provisional payment, as it is held by such person;

Since it is alleged that there is a ground for No. 14, according to each entry of No. 14, fff, qu.

The maximum amount of debt on June 29, 2015 with respect to an apartment unit owned by the Plaintiff as the obligor, shall be the maximum amount of debt on such apartment unit.

260,000,000 won for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real property, and the registration of the establishment of afff, the plaintiff shall be the debtor.

On September 24, 2013, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 360,00,000,000 as the obligor on September 24, 2013, and thefff

The establishment registration of a mortgage of KRW 50,000,000 on July 10, 2015, and the maximum maximum debt amount on January 28, 2016

40,000,000 Won The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 40,00 may be recognized as having been completed, but 1 above provisional payment

The interest rate for the recognition of gold is cc with respect to cc and on the other hand cc in the year 2010 to 2012.

A. The establishment of the right to collateral security for the plaintiff is on June 29, 2015, and thus the above right to collateral security or the fff.

The grounds for exclusion from inclusion in the gross income in determining whether the provision of security is included in the gross income.

It is not to be considered, and ② Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rule of Corporate Tax Act shall be one of the reasons for exclusion from earnings.

Section A. A. Where a claim is held for offset against the claim in question; however, Section 8.

19 With respect to the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2013, cccca as of December 31, 2013, KRW 54,643,182.

c. 2010 to 2012 for cc in fact holding a retirement allowance claim

It cannot be readily concluded that there was a set-off with interest 164,929,952, which can not be determined otherwise.

c. In addition, even if such claims exist, cc.

- 14 -

The recognition of the provisional payments is far less than the interest, and the time of such occurrence is not recovered.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the case constitutes a case that is deemed justifiable, etc.:

After the defendant denied the recovery of the provisional payment, the amount equivalent to the interest that is recognized as the provisional payment shall be accounted for in calculating the amount of income.

It is legitimate to include this part of the Plaintiff’s argument. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

d) Nos. d)

The whole statements and arguments of Gap, Gap evidence 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, 6, and 7

According to the purport of this subsection, the plaintiff shall pay monthly interest to other creditors, including e, e and ar, as the other creditors.

payment, such as principal, interest rate, and time of payment of interest (A evidence 3-1, maximum amount

Food has been recorded and managed in Gyeyang District Tax Office, and the plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation.

on the basis of this, bonds that are based on the premise that they borrowed money from other creditors.

Preparation of a comprehensive list of principal and interest, and a comprehensive list of interest payments (see Evidence A No. 3-2, No. 6, No. 7)

and against this, the fact that the defendant has been submitted to the defendant may be recognized and against the other creditors, the

A, consistent with the assertion that the borrower is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, Section 17

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the statement of family evidence No. 18 is in good faith, and evidence No. 18 is stated.

The statement alone lacks sufficient to reverse the above recognition, and thus, the plaintiff's money from other creditors.

It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant borrowed money. Accordingly, on the premise of this, the Plaintiff as to CC and fff

5,100,304 won each business year to deny the collection of the provisional payment and to recognize the provisional payment.

The inclusion in the calculation of the Do income amount is legitimate, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

E) As to the issues *

For the reasons as seen in paragraph (d) above, it is reasonable to see that the subject of the loan is the Plaintiff even in the case of creditor zzz, yyy, and x, and as the subject of the loan, Gap evidence 3, 6, 7, Eul

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is about the above obligees.

A person who only indicates his/her name and who can identify who is the creditor, such as resident registration number and address;

In the case of the obligees, the number, address, etc. of the obligees are not verified.

the creditor's claim against the plaintiff is a bond for which the creditor is not known.

The Defendant’s interest paid to creditors zz, yyy, and xx.

Of 39,475,00 won, 25,251,500 won, excluding the withheld tax amount, is legitimate in the calculation of income amount pursuant to Article 28 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is also groundless.

F) Disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case on the illegal acquisition of cash delivery (Evidence A 3-1)

Whether it is unlawful or not

At the time of the investigation into the Plaintiff, the Defendant verified the Plaintiff’s computer and withdrawn money.

Some of the computerized data containing the payment (No. 3-1) have been reproduced to the USB, and this is "(1)."

The facts not entered in the list of market depository documents, etc. do not conflict between the parties, or Gap

The evidence of heading 15, 16, and 4 shall be recognized by each entry of heading 4.

However, pursuant to Article 81-10 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an investigating public official shall

Where there is a consent, books, documents, etc. of a taxpayer to the tax office for the purpose of a tax investigation.

In accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the whole purport of pleadings, the defendant is deemed to have judged that the above computerized data is merely a copy and did not enter it in the list of temporary storage documents, etc., and it is deemed that the plaintiff obtained consent from the plaintiff at the time to acquire and keep them (it does not seem to have been any objection or rejection by the plaintiff even though the defendant knew that he would search and acquire computerized data). Thus, the disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case, which was issued on the sole basis of the above recognition, cannot be deemed to have been unlawful or unlawful. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

G) Ultimately, the instant disposition of imposing corporate tax is lawful.

2) Whether notice of change in the income amount of the instant case is illegal (Dispute No. 3, 5, 6 related)

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s representative of the year 2010 to 2012

The income amount for each business year after denying the cash recovery of interest 164,929,952 that is recognized as provisional payment; and

On the premise that the borrower of other creditors is the plaintiff in the case of inclusion in the gross income in calculating the amount (III).

c) deny the Plaintiff’s provisional payment collection against cc andfff, and recognize the provisional payment for this;

56,100,304 won is included in the calculation of the income amount for each business year (not p.m.), and creditor zzzz.

yy and x interest 25,251,50 won paid to x is deemed as a bond interest in which the creditor is unclear and thus, is deemed as a non-deductible income in the calculation of the income amount for each business year.

Therefore, on this premise, the notice of change in the income amount of this case given by the defendant against the plaintiff is legitimate.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of interest income tax in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

D. The remainder of the plaintiff's remaining claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.