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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. From September 3, 2004 to December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative in the corporate register of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. Upon filing a report on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 2008, the instant company appropriated and reported 148 million won for short-term loans to shareholders, executives, and affiliated companies (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant, on August 31, 2008, deemed that the instant loan was not collected until August 31, 2008, and the ownership of the instant loan is unclear, and disposed of the instant loan by recognizing the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. On September 3, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax amounting to 44,966,760 won, local income tax amounting to 4,496,670 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 14, 2012, but was dismissed on March 15, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the instant company in its form upon C’s request, and the actual operator of the instant company was C, and thus, the instant disposition that was rendered to the Plaintiff, which was merely a representative in its form, was unlawful. 2) In the process of closure and liquidation of the instant company, the instant loan was actually dissolved and liquidated. In that process, since the instant loan was distributed as residual property to C and its family members, it was unlawful for the Plaintiff to have disposed of the instant loan again by being recognized as the Plaintiff

3 The instant disposition is based on the General Rules 4-0, 6 of the Corporate Tax Act, which is merely an administrative rule, which is based on this.