Where the exclusion period expires within three months from the expiration date of the exclusion period, a decision or a decision of correction before the pre-assessment review shall be made.

In cases where the period of exclusion expires not more than three months, a decision or a decision of correction may be made even before the decision on pre-assessment review is made. The fact that a corporation liable for tax payment falls under the shareholders of another corporation which is the opposite contractual party and cannot be viewed as falling under a specially related party, and that new stocks and subscription cannot be regarded as an abnormal act lacking economic rationality, and that disposition

Pretax propriety review under Article 81-15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

2013Guhap13174, revocation of disposition, etc. of imposing corporate tax

○○○○ Corporation

○ Head of tax office et al.

November 21, 2013

January 9, 2014

1. With respect to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2011:

A. The portion exceeding 2,543,797,800 won of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2005 by the head of ○○ Tax Office

B. The part of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 5,646,084,360, which was given by the director of the regional tax office of ○○ income with the head of Si/Gun/Gu as ParkA shall be revoked in excess of KRW 5,613,084,360 in the business year of 205.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The order is as follows (as seen below, the head of the tax office imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff on March 4, 201 in 2005, and the reduction was corrected on March 31, 201, and the date of the disposition is March 4, 2011).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's inclusion in deductible expenses related to corporate tax in 2005

1) The Plaintiff is established on August 11, 197, and is engaged in the education and publication cultural business, book, study site production and wholesale retail business, etc., and ParkA currently holds 58% of the Plaintiff’s shares as its internal director, and the remaining shares are owned by ParkA’s spouse, parents, and siblings.

AAAA (hereinafter referred to as "AA") is established on November 25, 1992, and is engaged in the publication and sale of books and educational books. The Plaintiff owned 9,970 shares of AA (9.79%) and YA owned 30 shares of AAA (0.3%).

2) ParkA completed the registration of a copyright holder with respect to ○○○○ A-M-class 24 textbooks (hereinafter “the instant copyrighted work”). On December 31, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to establish a publication right on the said copyrighted work with ParkA, and paid for the copyrighted work from that time. In 2005, ParkA paid KRW 5,613,084,360 for the copyrighted work to ParkA.

3) As follows, AAA made capital increase three times, and the Plaintiff acquired new shares by investing 99,970 billion won in Gohap 99,970 (10,000 won, and 990,000 won). After the capital increase, shares are 99,970 shares (i.e., 9,900 shares prior to the capital increase + 990,000 shares, and 99.99% shares (hereinafter referred to as “1, 2, and 3 capital increase”) (hereinafter referred to as “1, 3 capital increase”).

Date

Money (won)

1. Initial capital increase

June 14, 2002

900,000,000

Second, Paid-in capital increase

June 27, 2003

5,000,000,000

3rd Paid-in capital increase

December 31, 2004

4,000,000,000

Total

9,900,000,000

On July 12, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred all of the shares of AA to ○ Computer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Computer”), a subsidiary company, at one source (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares transfer”), and AA has completed the merger registration on November 30, 2005 by combining ○ Computer with ○○ Computer.

4) On October 14, 2005, the Plaintiff requested consulting services to ○ Accounting Corporation, and paid 228 million won in total, including the down payment of 66 million won on November 25, 2005, the intermediate payment of 66 million won on December 31, 2005, and the remainder of 96.8 million won on February 28, 2006 (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

5) The Plaintiff reported the corporate tax base and tax amount for the business year 2005, and ① the cost of using the instant copyrighted works, ② the cost of 5,613,084,360, and ② the cost of 9,99,700,000 won for disposal of securities following the transfer of the instant copyrighted shares (=99,970 shares x 10,000 won), and ③ the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment paid to Samsung Accounting Corporation in accordance with the instant service agreement, was included in the deductible expenses.

(b) consolidated investigation and taxation disposition of corporate tax;

1) Defendant ○○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into corporate tax in 2005 against the Plaintiff in July 6, 2010, and (i) the author of the instant work is the Plaintiff, and thus, he is the Plaintiff, and thus, he is deemed as deductible expenses the cost of using the instant work paid to ParkA in 2013,084,360, and is disposed of as bonus to ParkA, and (ii) the third new shares were made for the purpose of extinguishing the obligation to pay loans to the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not reasonable in light of social norms and commercial practices. (iii) The instant service agreement is deemed as deductible expenses of KRW 9 billion incurred from the transfer of new shares after the third new shares was transferred, and (iv) the amount of the instant work is reduced to deductible expenses to be borne by AAA and ParkA in 2005,000,000 won, and the remaining amount of the work is notified to A0,300,000 won as bonus to the Plaintiff.

2) On July 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

3) On March 4, 2011, according to the results of the above tax investigation, Defendant ○○ Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 6,686,30,144 for the business year 2005, and Defendant ○○○ Tax Office notified changes in the amount of income (= KRW 5,646,084,360 related to the instant work + KRW 5,613,084,360 related to the instant work + KRW 33,000 related to the instant service contract).

4) On March 22, 201, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review, rendered a decision to partially adopt the new shares that should be included in deductible expenses as it is a normal investment amount for the normalization of the subsidiaries’ business.

Accordingly, on March 31, 201, the head of the tax office of ○○○ Tax Office reduced the Plaintiff’s KRW 2,264,196,490 of the corporate tax in the business year 2005 (the tax amount in South Korea is KRW 4,422,103,650).

(c) Request for examination and litigation;

1) On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection to the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and “the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of February 7, 2013” re-examines the copyright holders of the instant copyrighted work, and determines the tax base and amount of corporate tax, and

2) On May 16, 2013, except for the portion related to the instant work, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation only for the portion exceeding KRW 33 million related to the instant service contract (the portion that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition exceeds KRW 2,543,797,80), among corporate tax 4,422, and KRW 878,305,850 (the portion that exceeds KRW 2,543,797,80) and the notice of change in income amount of KRW 5,646,084,360 (the portion that exceeds KRW 5,613,084,360) in relation to the instant service contract (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case” and “the notice of change in income amount of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition of the corporate tax in this case and the notice of change in income amount are legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The instant disposition of imposing corporate tax and notice of change in income amount do not fall under the cases where the pre-assessment review claim under the Framework Act on National Taxes can be determined, and thus, the Plaintiff’s prior opportunity for remedy of rights is procedurally unlawful. ② The securities disposal loss following the third new shares do not fall under the category of wrongful calculation under each subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and even in that case, it cannot be subject to the rejection of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, as the economic rationality is recognized in light of sound social norms and commercial practice. In addition, the service cost under the instant service contract is recognized as related to the Plaintiff’s business, and the Defendant, without reasonable grounds,

Therefore, the imposition of corporate tax in this case and notice of change in income amount are illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Since its establishment on November 25, 1992, AA began with the business of Jeon Jong and Integrated Learning Site from around 2001 while printing and selling a part of a set.

2) AAA had a large amount of expenses due to development costs, etc. in relation to the entire house and comprehensive learning site business, and the amount of loans was reduced to 17 billion won. The Plaintiff, as a parent company, provided a term deposit as security or guaranteed the obligation to pay loans. The amount paid by the Plaintiff due to the subscription of each new stock from 1 to 3ths was used as the repayment of loans and operating funds of AAA.

3) On June 1, 2003, the Plaintiff and AAA established a management rationalization PEN to transfer the development portion of the entire place of study and comprehensive place of study to the Plaintiff, and to review the succession of employment. Accordingly, AA entered into a publication contract with the Plaintiff on July 4, 2003, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the acquisition of assets to transfer to the Plaintiff all rights related to the intellectual property rights of the comprehensive place of study and total place of work among the business contents of AAA, and to purchase the comprehensive place of study and total place of work at a specified price.

4) The Plaintiff offered secondary capital increase for the improvement of the financial structure and the extension of loans to financial institutions following the continuous management of AAA, and further examined the merger between AA and the Plaintiff in order to avoid the hostile structure, but only entered into an asset acquisition agreement as above.

5) On May 10, 2004, AA entered into an agreement on acquisition of assets between the Plaintiff, and on May 24, 2004, the agreement on acquisition of assets to transfer equipment and supplies to the Plaintiff, and on May 24, 2004, the agreement on acquisition of products to transfer the materials for young children at the house and at the school, to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, on September 19, 2004, 17 of the 19 staff members of AA retired, and one person transferred to its affiliated company.

5) Based on the internal report of May 3, 2005, the Plaintiff reviewed measures to utilize AAAAA’s carried-over losses, such as repayment of loans to KRW 7 billion for the remaining loans of KRW 7 billion, acquisition of part of the Plaintiff’s profit-making business, or merger with other heat companies.

6) According to the data prepared before entering into the instant service contract on September 2005, the purpose of the service contract, and the purpose of the service contract is corporate restructuring, next generation, overseas business management, and the detailed review is the review of the plan of inheritance, the review of the plan of division into the real estate sector, the review of the plan of division into the real estate sector, the review of the utilization of the losses carried forward of the subsidiary, the review of the necessity of conversion into the holding company, the review of the necessity of conversion into the holding company, the preparation of the plan of reorganization into the company, and the establishment of

7) The Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with ○ Accounting Corporation on October 14, 2005. The scope of the service is "to draw up a business disclosure scheme, review the necessity of conversion into a holding company, draw up the optimal business structure reorganization scheme, and other matters requested by the Plaintiff relating to the above measures." The service result refers to an interim report on the service result until November 25, 2005, and a final report by January 6, 2006. The service period is from October 17, 2005 to January 6, 2006. The service remuneration is KRW 20 million (excluding value-added tax, business travel expenses, printing expenses), and the intermediate payment is to be paid within seven days from the date of entering into the contract, and the remaining report is to be paid within eight million won under the condition that the Plaintiff shall submit the final report within seven days from the date of entering into the contract.

8) On September 30, 2005, AA drafted a merger plan between ○ Computer and ○ Computer, and entered into a merger agreement between ○ Computer and ○ Computer on October 5, 2005.

"9) The use of internal documents containing the progress of the Plaintiff by reflecting the results of the review by ○○ Accounting firm is as follows (A1 refers to children of ParkA and A1)."

Fees

Jinay

July 12, 2005

Doese Share Acquisition Doz.

① The Plaintiff and the AAA shares are transferred to ○○ Computer.

(2) Evaluation of 0 won of the stock value in the form of AA capital impairment.

Transfer Price

(each 1 won)

November 25, 2005

The payment of fees (contracts) under the formulation of a plan for the disclosure of enterprises;

66 million won

Fees

November 30, 2005

Dog Mad Consolidated (Effect of If the amount of tax for losses carried forward)

(1) AA (a surviving corporation), ○○ Computer (a extinguished corporation) merged.

2. The merger cost of AA 20,000 new shares

? ? ? Stock acquisition level

① ① Transfer of A1 and A1’s 60% of AA’s 60% of the shares to the KCA○○○ Media, ② “A1 (and 56,136,1368,00 shares), A1 (and 536,136*4,00 shares),” and the price for merger (20,00 shares).

Transfer Price

(67.9 billion)

December 31, 2005

The payment of fees for the establishment of a plan for the disclosure of enterprises on terms and conditions;

66 million won

Fees

February 28, 2006

Fees for the establishment of a plan for the disclosure of enterprises on terms and conditions;

96.8 million won

Fees

August 11, 2006

Doese Share Acquisition Doz.

① “A1 and A1” transfer 38.5% of the shares of the investment and financing company, to AAA, “B1 (Notice835,634*1,058 shares), A1 (Notice835,734*4,367 shares),” and “Transfer Price.”

(128.90 billion)

December 28, 2007

Re-checks pursuant to the BBBB Lease and Parcelling-out of the LBB;

22 million won

Fees

March 13, 2008

Along on the division of ○○ Broadcasting, a tax consulting fee shall be paid.

23.1 million won;

Fees

Fees small (○○ Accounting Firm)

273.9 million won;

10) AAA was mainly engaged in the main business in around 2001 before commencing the entire house and the comprehensive learning site portion. However, a single-speak sales amounted to KRW 1,195,00,000, and KRW 1,195,000,000 in 206 after a merger with ○○ Computer, and KRW 2,288,000,000 in 206. In addition, AA had five new personnel for a single-speak business on November 1, 2005.

11) In relation to the payment guarantee loss of the amount of KRW 7 billion on the part of the Plaintiff in 2004 and in relation to the payment guarantee loss of the remaining loan of KRW 7 billion on the part of the Plaintiff, △ Accounting Firm failed to appropriate the payment guarantee reserve fund on the ground that there is evidence that the surplus cash of the AA is expected to be more than KRW 1 billion on the part of the company as a result of a review conducted by the person in charge of the company on the basis of the cash flow forecast data of KRW 2005, and that there is no evidence that the AAA loan will not be subrogated for for a considerable period of time.

Classification

Amount ( million won)

(Sales) Revenue (Sales)

Expenditure (cost)

Expenditure (Benefits)

(Interest) Expenditure (interest)

Total Surplus Cash

1.910

(-) 573

(-)24

(-)300

1,013

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 6 to 8, and Eul evidence 4 to 23, and the whole purport of pleading

D. Determination as to the existence of procedural illegality grounds

1) Article 81-15(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that a request for pre-assessment review may be made. Article 81-15(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that, as an exception, subparagraph 3 provides that “Where the period from the date of notification of the result of the tax investigation to the expiration date of the exclusion period of national tax imposition is not more than three months, the head of a tax office, etc. who has received the request for pre-assessment review shall make a decision after the review of the National Tax Examination Committee

Meanwhile, Article 63-14(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24573, Jun. 11, 2013) provides that the head of a tax office, etc. who has received a request for pre-assessment review shall withhold the determination or revised determination of the tax base and tax amount until a decision is made pursuant to Article 81-15(3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is made on the part of the request. The proviso to Article 81-15(2) of the former Framework Act

In addition, the pre-assessment review system, separate from the ex post facto remedy system after the tax assessment, has been prepared to enhance the effectiveness of the protection of rights by reflecting taxpayer's claims in the pre-assessment phase, but it does not constitute an essential premise for the taxation disposition, such as omitting the period of exclusion (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du19713, Oct. 11, 2012). Therefore, the aforementioned pre-assessment review-related statutes are construed to the effect that the claim for pre-assessment review is not permitted in cases where the period from the date of notification of the result of the tax investigation and the notice of prior notice of taxation to the expiration date of the period of exclusion of the imposition of national taxes is less than three months, and it cannot be viewed as a provision that the pre-assessment review cannot be determined or revised, unless the pre-assessment review is permitted, unless there is a prior notice of taxation.

Therefore, in cases where a pre-assessment review is requested because it is inconsistent with the purport of such pre-assessment review and the system of relevant regulations, and it does not fall under Article 81-15(2)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the head of a tax office, etc. should, in principle, withhold the determination or correction of the tax base and amount before the determination of the pre-assessment review, but it should be interpreted that the determination or correction of the tax base and amount can be made even before the determination of the pre-assessment review, where the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes is imminent and the period is less than three months until the expiration of the exclusion period for the imposition of national

2) Although the Plaintiff received a notice of the results of tax investigation on July 6, 2010 and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 29, 2010, the Plaintiff received a decision only after March 22, 2011. Meanwhile, a domestic corporation liable to pay corporate tax on the business year 2005 filed a report on the tax base and tax amount on the income for the business year 2005 until March 31, 2006, within three months from the end of the month to which the end of the business year belongs (see Article 60 of the Corporate Tax Act), and the exclusion period of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005, unless there are any special circumstances, is until March 31, 2011.

Therefore, on March 4, 201, when the period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes is imminent without the Defendants’ decision on pre-assessment review, the imposition of corporate tax in this case and the notice of changes in the amount of income in this case constitutes exceptional grounds prescribed by statutes, and it does not deprive the Plaintiff of the opportunity for prior remedy, and thus, there is no procedural illegality in each of the above dispositions.

D. Determination on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of this case

1) Article 52 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Tax Act") provides that where it is deemed that the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office has unjustly reduced the tax burden on the corporation's income due to an act or transaction with a person having a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as a "specially related person"), he may calculate the corporation's income for each business year regardless of the calculation of the corporation's income amount (hereinafter referred to as "Calculation by wrongful act"). Article 87 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706, Feb. 19, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") provides that "a person having a special relationship with the corporation as prescribed in the Presidential Decree refers to a person having one of the following relationships with the corporation and a minor shareholder (excluding the corporation):

As above, Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the calculation of the amount of income arising from a transaction with a specially related person or a transaction with a specially related person as the object of the wrongful calculation avoidance, and delegates the scope of the specially related person to the Presidential Decree, and Article 87(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a person who is liable for tax payment and a related person falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph is a specially related person. Thus, in light of the language and text of the provision, only the person who is under any of the above subparagraphs shall be deemed a specially related person. On the other hand, deeming that a taxpayer falls under a specially related person in any of the above subparagraphs in cases where a corporation is liable for tax payment based on the other party who made a transaction with a person liable for tax payment is not permissible against the language and text of the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du150, Jul. 21, 2011).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff participated in each of the capital increase shares issued by AA, a subsidiary holding 9,79% of the total outstanding shares, and the Plaintiff did not prove that AA constitutes the Plaintiff’s shareholder or other specially related persons. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a specially related person under Article 87(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of AAA, and thus, the disposition imposing the corporate tax of the instant case on another premise is unlawful without further review.

2) It is deemed that the third capital increase increase is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

Although the legal nature of the acquisition of new shares is recognized as a membership agreement aimed at the occurrence of an employee relationship under the Commercial Act, and it is inevitable to accept new shares at its par value when it is intended to acquire new shares due to the strict restriction on the issuance of new shares below par value under Article 417 of the Commercial Act, the acquisition of new shares issued by another corporation under tax accounting shall be subject to avoidance of unfair practices by comparing the difference between the legitimate evaluation value of the assets of the issuing company at the time of issuance of new shares with the appraisal value of the assets, etc. as the purchase of investment assets, and the reasonable appraisal value of new shares through the appraisal of the assets of the issuing company at the time of issuance of new shares should be determined. In addition to the profit and loss transaction, as long as capital transaction such as the acquisition of new shares affects income amount, it shall be deemed that the act falls under the category of wrongful calculation or the act or calculation corresponding thereto, and thus, it shall be subject to avoidance (see Supreme Court Decision 20

3) We examine whether the Plaintiff’s third new shares constitutes an unfair act due to the lack of economic rationality.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation’s wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed to have avoided or reduced tax burden by unfairly 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 with the person with whom the right to impose tax is deemed to have income that is objectively and reasonably reasonable by the method stipulated in the Act and subordinate statutes. In light of the economic person’s position, the determination of whether the transaction was economic rationality or not shall be made based on whether the transaction was grossly unreasonable in light of sound social norms or commercial practices in light of the overall circumstances of the transaction. However, the determination of whether the transaction was economic rationality or not shall also be made by taking into account the transaction price between the person with a special relationship and the special circumstances at the time of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14257, Dec. 13, 2007).

According to these legal principles, considering the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, it cannot be said that the third new stocks are abnormal acts lacking economic rationality.

① AAA is a company that has operated a normal business mainly with a single line of business. From 2001 to 201, the deficit accumulated while commencing a new business, and sought measures to normalize the business jointly with the Plaintiff. After the second capital increase, only the whole house and the comprehensive learning place that have caused the deficit, the AA made efforts to improve the profitability by transferring it to the Plaintiff, and maintaining only the sales of the entire house and the comprehensive learning place or the single line of business.

② 원고는 3차 신주인수 이후에도，AAAA가 추가 유상증자를 통해 차입금을 상환하고 원고의 수익사업을 양수하거나 합병 등을 통해 이월결손금을 활용하는 등 AAAA의 정상화 방안을 검토하였고，3차 신주인수 당시 AAAA의 청산을 전제로 전체적인 계� 하에 유상증자 및 신주인수를 하였다고 보이지는 않는다.

③ Even after the third capital increase, AA had been engaged in sales related to the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the other of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part

④ After the third capital increase in the audit report, it was evaluated that the cash flow of AA in 2005 exceeded 1 billion won and the subrogation for the loan was not made for a considerable period of time.

4) In short, AA’s imposition disposition of the instant corporate tax on the premise that the third new shares that the Plaintiff’s related party was an unfair act is illegal is unlawful.

E. Determination on the notice of change in the instant income amount

Considering the following circumstances known in the above facts, this case’s service contract is not related to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be readily concluded that the AA and the LA, etc. should bear their costs.

① The subject of the instant service contract is the Plaintiff, and the instant service contract includes the restructuring of the business, including a plan to utilize the carryover deficit of the AAA, and a plan to disclose the business. In addition, the Plaintiff’s internal review of the merger, etc. between the Plaintiff and the AAA as one of the measures to normalize the management of the AAA. In addition, the content of the instant service contract includes an internal review and the content related to the transfer of shares of the AA in relation to the Plaintiff, and the content of the instant service contract is not relevant to the Plaintiff.

② The instant service agreement was concluded by determining the amount of 200 million won for all services, except value-added tax, and thus, the remainder that was paid in 2005 was not related to the Plaintiff, and that was paid in 2006 cannot be classified as related to the Plaintiff.

③ The Defendant calculated the remainder of the service costs other than the remainder paid in 2006 as KRW 33 million (132 million +25%) on the ground that ParkA’s share was equally divided by AA, ○○ Computer, ○○○○ Media, and ParkA. However, since ParkA and its children transferred shares to the State ○○ Media, the Defendant’s account cannot be reasonable solely based on a written confirmation (Evidence No. 24) submitted by the Plaintiff’s representative in the course of the tax investigation (Evidence No. 24) as it is unclear why the said company should bear the cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the cost was reasonably distributed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

-