1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff merged Company B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as each of the instant corporations) with the purpose of driving school business, etc., and issued new shares of KRW 4,285,714 (the face value of KRW 100) in the process and paid the price for the merger to the shareholders of each of the instant corporations as the price for the merger.

The Plaintiff: (a) reflected the assets and liabilities of each of the instant corporations in the account books as follows; (b) included the difference between KRW 3,461,341,901 (the difference between the goodwill and the loss from merger) as indicated below, and paid in excess of the fair value (36,974,901 won is based on the effects of the deferred corporate tax on derivatives assets; hereinafter “instant goodwill”) in the following business rights; and (c) depreciated (5 years) according to the straight-line method.

(Unit: (Unit: 9,959,856 Total Amount of Debt (Fair Value) 6,715,655 Business License 3,424,367, 428,5716,239,99, in relation to the above merger, the Plaintiff included KRW 3,461,341,901 in gross income and deductible expenses (income disposition and other deductible expenses) and reported corporate tax for the business year 2009, in relation to the above merger.

After conducting ex-post verification of corporate tax against the plaintiff, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office notified the defendant of taxation data that the instant goodwill constitutes merger evaluation (business right) and must be excluded from deductible expenses. On August 1, 2013, the defendant issued a revised notice of corporate tax 1,104,790,540 for the business year 2009 by including the instant goodwill in the gross income for the business year 2009, and adding the depreciation cost of 57,689,029 to the plaintiff as deductible expenses.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate.