2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

(1) On December 1, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 450,814,070 (including additional tax) for the business year 2012 against the Plaintiff is revoked in entirety exceeding KRW 41,147,843 (including additional tax), the amount exceeding KRW 15,324,456 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 428,763,970 (including additional tax) for the business year 2013, and the amount exceeding KRW 10,854,796 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 407,50 (including additional tax) for the business year 2014, and the amount exceeding KRW 10,854,796 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: Of the judgment of the first instance court, the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2013 and the business year 2014 is amended as follows. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 exceeds KRW 15,324,456 (including additional tax) of the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2013 and KRW 10,854,796 (including additional tax) of the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2013 and the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2014 and the amount exceeding KRW 10,854,796 (including additional tax) of the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2014 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of some contents and the dismissal of some contents. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

○ Part 16 of the Decision 10th 10th 16 of the Judgment of the first instance shall result in the result. The following shall be added:

In addition, Article 56 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "income accrued from profit-making business" in Article 29 (1) 4 of the Act refers to the income amount generated from profit-making business in the pertinent business year (referring to the income amount before including the proper purpose business reserve fund and donations under Article 24 (2) of the Act in deductible expenses) minus donations under Article 24 (2) of the Act. If the donations in the former part and the latter part of the corporate tax are equally interpreted, the same amount shall be added and deducted in the latter part, and thus, the same provision is virtually unclear. In interpreting such provision, the purport of setting the maximum amount of inclusion in deductible expenses in the proper purpose business shall be comprehensively considered in addition to the interpretation of the language and text. In addition, in the corporate tax declaration guidance published by the National Tax Service, it is stated that the "amount of inclusion in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act" shall be deducted.

○ The 12th judgment of the first instance court refers to the "legislation" of the 11st judgment as the "legislation."

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, all appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Justices Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Justice)

Note 1) On December 3, 2015, which is written in the warden as the date of disposition, in light of the respective descriptions in Section A-1-3, it is apparent that it is a clerical error in writing on December 1, 2015.