1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,313,391,340 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 9, 2006 to May 2, 201, and the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2005, the Defendant calculated the tax base at KRW 48,638,206,288, the calculated tax amount at KRW 13,120,315,697, respectively, and filed a corporate tax return for the business year 2004.

B. On March 31, 2006, the Defendant calculated the tax base at KRW 15,975,523,516, the calculated tax amount at KRW 0,000, and reported the corporate tax for the business year 2005.

C. In addition, on March 30, 2006, the defendant filed a request with the head of Yeongdeungpopo District Tax Office to refund KRW 4,313,391,349 by deducting 15,516 from the amount of corporate tax for the 2005 business year within the limit of 2004, on the ground that the defendant constitutes a small or medium enterprise under Article 25(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) pursuant to Article 72(1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), and on May 9, 2006, the Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office notified the defendant to refund KRW 4,313,391,340 among the amount of corporate tax for the 204 business year.

On the other hand, the Seoul Regional Tax Office denied the retroactive deduction of losses by deeming that the defendant's business type was not a small or medium enterprise when conducting a regular audit on the Yeongdeungpo tax secretary's letter as being the real estate supply business and denied the retroactive deduction of losses. On January 6, 2007, the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the defendant of the prior notice of taxation that corporate tax 4,68,068,360 won should be imposed. On February 8, 2007, the defendant appealed against this and filed a request for pre-assessment review on February 8,

E. On January 16, 2008, the head of Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office imposed an additional collection of KRW 4,929,343,630 on the Plaintiff based on Article 66(2)1 and 66(4) of the Corporate Tax Act on the ground that the Defendant does not fall under a small or medium enterprise under Article 25(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act that is subject to retroactive deduction of deficit.

The defendant.