All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In case where the merged corporation succeeds to the evaluation of assets from the merged corporation, the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be imposed on the portion exceeding the book value of the extinguished corporation as a merger evaluation marginal profit.

[The proviso of Article 17(1)3, the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22184, Jun. 8, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)

In the case of a merger, the business rights appropriated by the merged corporation shall be deemed depreciable assets only where the merged corporation succeeds to the evaluation of the assets of the merged corporation, due to trade name, trade relations, and other trade secrets, etc. (hereinafter “trade name, etc.”) of the merged corporation, and the compensation for which is paid.

(Article 24(4)(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

According to the relevant laws and regulations, in order to impose the value of business rights as a merger evaluation marginal profit in the case of a merger of corporations, the merged corporation can be deemed as an intangible asset value that can obtain excess profits from the trade name, etc. of the merged corporation and evaluated the business value and paid the consideration.

In this case, the assessment of business value shall be objectively determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the details and motive of the merger, the current business status of the merged corporation and the merged corporation at the time of the merger, and the details of tax return after the merger, and it cannot be inferred solely on the basis that the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41463 Decided May 11, 2018). C.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court, based on its reasoning, is so called “B” a non-listed corporation incorporated into the Plaintiff.