The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The rejection of unfair calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is a system in which the taxation authority denies or reduces the tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, instead of using a reasonable method by a person with a special relationship when a corporation trades with a person with a special relationship.

From the perspective of the economic person, only where it is deemed that the economic rationality was neglected by making an unnatural or unreasonable calculation, and the determination of whether the economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the transaction lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practice, taking into account the various circumstances of the transaction, and the determination of whether the transaction was conducted is based on whether the transaction lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practice; however, the transaction price between the persons with special relationship, special circumstances at the time of

(1) Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2002Du11479, Feb. 13, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 2008Du15541, Oct. 28, 2010; etc.). Meanwhile, in applying the method of wrongful calculation, Article 89(3) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “where a person borrows money at a rate higher than the market price,” one of the types of wrongful calculation, “where a person borrows money at a rate higher than the market price” shall be deemed as the market price, barring special circumstances, the interest rate prescribed in the above provision shall be deemed as the market price.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du40375 Decided July 26, 2018). 2. A.

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s Military Mutual Aid Association as a shareholder around December 3, 199.