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

The Defendant’s disposition rejecting to rectify the amount of KRW 588,938,173 of global income tax for the year 2013 owed to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2016 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff, which orders the revocation below, shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of correction with respect to the portion exceeding KRW 558,938,173 of the disposition rejecting correction of the global income tax of KRW 588,938,173, which belongs to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2016, shall be revoked.

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

○ The first instance court's decision 2 pages 4, 7, 15, and 3 pages 5, and the "new x x 13, respectively, shall be brought to the "New △".

○○ Decision 2 pages 2, 8 of the first instance court judgment, " July 6, 2016" shall be deemed " July 1, 2016".

○ The 15th to 19th 19th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eths.

The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as shown in the attached Form.

(B) Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 11 subparag. 2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”), Article 11 subparag. 9-2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016); and Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that provisional payments and its interest (hereinafter “provisional payments, etc.”) not recovered by the date on which the special relationship ceases to exist shall be included in the gross income: Provided, That where it is impossible to recover due to litigation on bonds and liabilities through the proviso of Article 11 subparag. 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, “where a related party has provided assets equivalent to the claim to be recovered as a compulsory execution on property owned by the related party,” where it is not recovered.

Meanwhile, according to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where it is evident that the provisional payments, etc., which were not recovered without justifiable grounds, have been leaked out of gross income because they were extinguished in accordance with the above provisions, the income can be disposed of to the person to whom such provisional payments, etc., belong. If the person to whom such provisional payments, etc., belong is an executive officer or employee, it can be disposed of as a bonus for the person to whom such provisional payments, etc., which is not recovered, even if the special relationship is extinguished, and it is obvious that the provisional payments, etc., which could be deemed to have been reverted to the executive officer or employee who has been actually paid the provisional payments, etc., fall under the case where it

(C) In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), and the witness testimony of this △△△△△△△△, which are acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s rectification of the tax base for the year 2013 of the non-party company and inclusion in the calculation of earnings (i.e., provisional payment of KRW 1,703,925,522 (i.e., provisional payment of KRW 1,690,950,527 + recognized interest u300 + recognized interest 12,974,995) may be deemed to have been abandoned when the non-party company transferred its management right and shares, and thus, the disposition of this case was lawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

① From the year 2008, the Plaintiff received provisional payment from the non-party company. The Plaintiff did not pay the provisional payment to the non-party company in 2008, 255,387,036 won in 209, and 289,652,620 won in 2010, and 392,202,116 won in 201. The Plaintiff extended the provisional payment to the non-party company’s assets in 2012, before entering into the instant contract on the transfer of management rights and shares of the non-party company, by receiving most of the collected provisional payment from the non-party company to the 1,237,561,597 won in the provisional payment. From January 25, 2013 which entered into the instant contract to February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff continued to receive more than 400 won in the short time period and to receive more than 200 won in the real payment.

② When entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff: (a) agreed to collect capital after the Plaintiff disposed of and repaid assets and liabilities outside the scope of transfer; and (b) cannot file an objection against the Plaintiff with respect to the interest and surplus funds on the financial statements (Article 3(2), 3), and 4), the Plaintiff may acquire part of the assets of the non-party company; (c) however, the Plaintiff was prohibited from holding the Plaintiff liable for the additional payment, etc. incurred in the course of accounting; (d) the Plaintiff intended to acquire the shares of the non-party company and actually exercised the management right on February 13, 2013; and (d) the Plaintiff was a person who was appointed as the representative director of the non-party company on February 13, 2013. In light of the circumstances under the instant agreement with the Plaintiff through the instant contract, the non-party company may be deemed to have practically waived the collection of the provisional payment, etc. to the Plaintiff at that time.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that the new obligor was exempted from the obligation to return the provisional payments and that the non-party company did not waive the collection of the provisional payments. However, according to Article 3(2) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the new obligor determined the transfer price based on the capital of the non-party company. The actual transfer price of the non-party company was KRW 260,00,335,313 as of the end of 2012, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the non-party company and KRW 1,690,950,527 as of the date of 2012, which was paid to the non-party company to the non-party company, was determined as the amount excluding the remaining liabilities, and it is difficult to view that the new obligor, who was the transferee, agreed to return the provisional payments to the non-party company on behalf of the Plaintiff. The reason why the new obligor did not actually have agreed to the non-party company that was excluded from the transfer of the assets to the non-party company at the disposal of the new shares.

④ If the new insurance company took over the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the provisional payment through the instant contract, it would be deemed that the share transfer price of the non-party company would be the sum of the provisional payment, etc. that the new insurance company would have taken over and return to the non-party company in KRW 260,000. However, there is no circumstance that the Plaintiff calculated the amount including the provisional payment, etc. as the share transfer price and paid the transfer income tax on share transfer. Rather, the Plaintiff imposed the gift tax on the new insurance company on the ground that the shares of the non-party company were transferred at low price, and the gift tax was imposed on the new insurance company on August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,000 to the new insurance company for the payment of the gift tax.

3. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s KRW 70,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to New △△ on August 28, 2015 can be deemed to have been returned to the Non-Party Company or to have been taken over by the new △△△△△. As such, at least the amount of KRW 26,600,000 pertaining to the amount of KRW 70,000 (=70,000,000 x tax rate of KRW 38%) should be reduced or corrected.

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract on January 25, 2013, and agreed to confirm that there was no obligation in arrears, obligation to perform, and administrative sanctions except for the proposed matters, and to prepare a statement of guarantee therefor (Article 3(5)). Accordingly, on February 14, 2013, “the Plaintiff et al., to the Do governor” is jointly and severally liable and immediately liable for any obligation in payment and obligation in addition to the scope of transfer of the instant contract, or any obligation after the date of transfer of shares due to the cause prior to the date of transfer of shares, or due to the date of transfer of shares, or due to the transfer of shares, and upon transfer of shares, each of the following persons is jointly and severally liable and immediately liable for any liability other than national taxes, local taxes, four premiums, etc., and even after the transfer of shares, each of the following persons is jointly and immediately liable and immediately liable for the non-party company’s outstanding shares, and the Plaintiff’s new shares were assigned to the Do governor.

As above, the plaintiff's side paid KRW 70,00,00 in order to pay the gift tax that was to be borne by the new insurance company in accordance with the agreement with the new insurance company, and the payment was made at the time when about two years and six months have passed since the transfer of shares by the non-party company was made in accordance with the contract with the non-party company. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff paid KRW 70,000,000 to the non-party company or the new insurance company in order to return the provisional payment that the plaintiff received from

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.