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

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, on April 1, 2011, when the defendant decided the corporate tax for the business year 2006 against the plaintiff, all of the disposition of income, including the inclusion of the OOO in the gross income and the inclusion in the deductible expenses, shall be revoked.

Preliminaryly, on October 11, 2011, the corporate tax related to each disposition of income and inclusion in the calculation of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

A. On January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff is a corporation that entered into a contract with CCC (hereinafter “CCC”) that operates BB hotel from OO-Gu OO-dong 248-5 to BB hotel management services and operates a parking lot business.

B. On December 13, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired 251,720 shares of CCCD Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Unemployment”) owned by CCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) from the CCC with a special relationship on December 13, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “acquisition of the instant shares”).

C. Meanwhile, on August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred 314,720 shares of DD unemployment including the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff to the EE Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Industry”) with a special relationship on August 10, 200 to the OO members per share (hereinafter “instant shares transfer”).

D. From December 7, 2010 to January 17, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated corporate tax investigation for the Plaintiff’s 2006 to 2009 year. Considering that the Plaintiff acquired the instant stocks from CCC at a higher level, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant, who is the district tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s corporate tax on April 1, 201, of the difference between the supplementary appraised value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (OO value per share) and the Plaintiff’s acquisition value (OO value per share) under the provisions of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act at the time of determining corporate tax for the business year 2006, pursuant to the provision of wrongful calculation in the Corporate Tax Act. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on April 1, 201 for the business year (OO value - 251,720).

E. In addition, with respect to the transfer of DUnemployment stocks, including the instant stocks, to EE industry, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) as a procedure for ratification of the existing inclusion in deductible expenses of the instant stocks in deductible expenses; (b) under the tax adjustment in the gross income of OOO members; (c) under the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer value per share is lower than the value per share assessed by OOO members under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and constitutes low-price transfer, OOO members were included in the gross income; and (d) other taxation data of the Plaintiff, the competent tax office, including the details of extraction, were notified to the Defendant. On October 11, 2011, the Defendant corrected and notified the OOO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 on the basis of such notification given to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “corporate tax disposition for the business year 2009”).

F. On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares from the CCC on December 13, 2006 does not constitute a high-value acquisition that is the object of wrongful calculation.” However, the Seoul Regional Tax Office rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on September 29, 201, and partly rejected the other allegations and made a decision.

G. On January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of imposing corporate tax on the Defendant for the business year 2006 (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No662), but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 7, 2013 for the following reasons.

○ The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s gross income and deductible expenses for each business year, calculated the amount of income, and accordingly, determined the tax base as a result of the calculation of corporate tax in excess of gross income or deductible expenses, and thus, the disposition of income is not immediately effective. Therefore, the taxation authority’s above decision cannot be deemed a disposition that is subject to appeal immediately, since the Defendant’s disposition of income through the calculation of gross income and outflow from the market price of the instant stock does not constitute a disposition that is subject to review because it is merely a prior procedure of the tax authority to determine the difference between the market price of the instant stock and the calculation of gross income and outflow from the gross income. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of income through the calculation of gross income and outflow from the private company

○ Meanwhile, at the Council of Tax Judges on February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff’s agent stated that the Plaintiff’s agent added his/her intent to request the reduction of some amount of corporate tax in the imposition disposition of corporate tax OOO on October 20, 201 on the Plaintiff on October 20, 201. However, the Plaintiff already filed an appeal on November 29, 201 with regard to the imposition disposition of corporate tax, and the Tax Tribunal notified the decision of tax adjudication (the first instance court’s ruling on May 51, 201, November 21, 2012), so it constitutes a double claim, and thus, it is deemed an unlawful claim.

H. On the other hand, on the other hand, on December 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal by asserting that only the portion of the “OOO or OO or O or O or employee of the corporate tax related to the transfer of the instant shares” should be excluded from the gross income in calculating the transfer value of the instant shares in accordance with the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No551), and the Tax Tribunal accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on November 21, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Gap evidence 22, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and CCC invested a large number of efforts and time to calculate the fair value of the instant shares, and the accounting corporation made an investment in order to reflect the economic substance value of the instant shares, such as the valuation, and there was no intent to evade or reduce taxes due to artificial high-evaluation, so even though the acquisition of the instant shares does not fall under the object of unfair calculation, the Defendant’s disposal of each of the instant shares in the gross income and deductible expenses included in the deductible expenses by deeming the acquisition of the instant shares to be subject to unfair calculation, shall be revoked illegally, or the Defendant’s disposition of disposal of the instant shares in the gross income and deductible expenses shall be revoked in the course of the business year 2006 when the corporate tax was determined for the business year 2009 when the corporate tax was determined for the business year 206.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Whether the main claim part of the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

The plaintiff's primary claim of this case that "the defendant sought revocation of each disposition of income that was included in the calculation of earnings and deductible expenses from the OOOO members at the time of the decision of corporate tax for the business year 2006 that was made against the plaintiff on April 1, 201," and the defendant's primary claim of this case is unlawful since the disposition of income that the plaintiff seeks revocation is not subject to administrative litigation, and thus, it is unlawful

Since the subject matter of a tax lawsuit is the existence or absence of a justifiable tax amount, it is natural to dispute the tax amount due to the change in the income amount of the corporation due to the denial of wrongful calculation. However, even if the tax authority denied the calculation of the act for the pertinent business year by wrongful calculation, if the effect of the denial does not affect the difference in the income amount for the pertinent business year, it cannot be asserted in the pertinent business year, and it can only be asserted in the business year (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1433, Nov. 28, 1997). Thus, if a tax official calculates the income amount of a corporation for each business year of a corporation and calculates the income amount, and determines the tax base accordingly, it is not an administrative disposition that is the subject matter of an appeal litigation, and if there is an error in the determination, it can be asserted in the procedure of disputing the validity of the taxation disposition accordingly (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du2652, Nov. 26, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant deemed the plaintiff's acquisition of the shares of this case as high-priced acquisition and then disposed of the amount equivalent to the above amount as income from other outflow of the plaintiff's acquisition value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act when the corporate tax was determined for the business year 2006, as well as the income from other outflow of the plaintiff's acquisition value. The plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to EE industry in the business year 2009, which confirmed the existing inclusion of the shares of this case in deductible expenses, and made tax adjustment under the OOO's gross income calculation in the business year 2006. Since the effect of the avoidance of wrongful calculation of the shares of this case does not affect the difference in the income amount of the business year 2006, the plaintiff's disposal of the shares of this case can not be asserted for the reason that the acquisition of the shares of this case does not constitute high-priced acquisition, and the plaintiff's disposal of the shares of this case can not be asserted as the plaintiff's unlawful calculation of the income amount of the same business year 2009.

B. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

The plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case "the defendant sought cancellation of corporate tax related to each disposition of income and inclusion in the calculation of earnings and losses of the OOOOO won at the time of the decision of corporate tax for the business year 2006, which was imposed on the plaintiff on October 11, 201 for the business year 2009". However, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is unlawful because the plaintiff's conjunctive claim was filed with the lapse of the filing period or without going through the pre-trial procedure.

In light of the above facts, on December 29, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal only for the portion of "OOO or Securities Transaction Tax OO or employee related to the transfer of the instant shares" in the Defendant's disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009, and did not file a request for a trial on the portion related to the transfer of the instant shares (the Plaintiff's tax agent) (the Plaintiff's request for a trial on the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2006 was made on February 24, 2013 and the Defendant's request for a revocation of corporate tax for the portion related to the transfer of the instant shares among the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2009 was stated to be added to the Defendant's claim for a revocation of corporate tax for the portion related to the transfer of the instant shares among the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 209, which was already issued on November 21, 2012.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since each lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.