Whether a person with special interest in property contributed by a public corporation is subject to gift tax when it is used without compensation.

It is reasonable to levy gift tax on the land contributed by a public interest corporation as it is confirmed that it has allowed interested persons to use and benefit from the land free of charge. However, in the case of a part of the land, it is recognized that a certain price relationship for use and benefit is recognized, and

Article 48 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Non-Inclusion, etc. of Property Invested by Public Corporations)

1. Of each gift tax and each corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2005, the part that exceeds each gift tax and each corporate tax stated in the original tax amount column in the separate sheet of imposition of attached Table 1, which the Defendant made against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

On January 6, 2005, the Defendant revoked the imposition of each gift tax and each corporate tax on the Plaintiff listed in the original tax amount column in the annexed tax assessment list (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of KRW 1,947,378,720, and KRW 169,29,800 for the business year or 2000 through 203, while the purport of the revocation is that the gift tax is the donor, and the corporate tax is the subject of the revocation of the imposition imposed each business year).

1. Details of the instant disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the whole purport of the pleading in the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 1-7, Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 3:

"가. 별지 2 토지 및 건물현황' 기재 각 토지(이하 이 사건 각 토지' 라 한다)를 비롯한 ○○○시 ○○동 소재 19필지 토지는 원래 소외 신○○의 소유였는데, 신○○는 1988. 2. 13. 경 이 사건 각 토지를 포함한 위 19필지 토지를 원고에게 증여하였다. 신○○가 위 19필지 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차이행을 거부하자 원고는 신○○를 상대로 위 19필지의 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기청구소송을 제기하였고 소송도중인 1997. 2. 21. 신○○가 사망함에 따라 그의 유족인 처 정○○ 및 자녀들인 신□□, 신△△, 신◎◎, 신▽▽, 신☆☆, 신●●이 신○○를 소송수계 하였으며(다만 원고법인의 이사장인 신□□은 원고 청구를 받아들인 것으로 보인다), 1999. 12. 13. 대법원에서 최종 승소판결이 선고됨에 따라(대법원 ○○다○○○○○호) 위 19필지 토지에 관하여 2000. 2. 9. 원고 앞으로 1988. 2. 13. 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다. 원고는 위 19필지 토지를 소유하다가 2003. 2. 7. 소외 ○○○○○○ 주식회사에게 같은 해 1. 24. 대물변제를 원인으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었다.", "나. 이 사건 각 토지 위에는 원고 법인의 이사장인 신□□, 신□□의 동생인 신●● 및 신□□의 아들인 신■■ 등 3인(이하 신□□ 등' 이라 한다) 소유의 상가 및 주택들(이하 이 사건 각 건물' 이라 한다)이 건립되어 있었고 신□□ 등은 이 사건 각 건물을 임대하여 수익을 얻고 있었는데, 원고가 이 사건 각 토지의 소유권을 보유하고 있던 2000. 2. 9.부터 2003. 2. 7.까지 기간 동안 원고에게 그 토지에 대한 사용료 등 금원을 지급한 바는 없다.", "다. 피고는 원고가 공익목적으로 출연 받은 이 사건 각 토지를 특수 관계인에게 무상으로 사용 · 수익하게 한 것으로 보고 상속세 및 증여세법(이하 상속세및증여세법' 이라 한다) 제48조 제3항(공익법인 등의 자기내부거래)에 의하여 2005. 1. 6. 원고에게 별지 1 부과처분 목록의 당초 세액란 기재 각 증여세 합계금 1,947,378,720원과 임대수입누락 등에 대하여 같은 목록 당초 세액란 기재 각 법인세 합계금 169,299,780원을 결정, 고지하였다(이하 이 사건 각 부과처분' 이라 한다).",라. 원고 법인의 이사장인 신□□은 이 사건 각 부과처분에 불복하여 2005. 3. 24. 국세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나 2006. 12. 11. 기각되었다.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the imposition of gift tax

(A) The legislative intent of Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to prevent evasion of the law by using the property owned by a public-service corporation and actually related persons to avoid gift tax by using the property owned by a public-service corporation. Since before each land of this case was contributed to the Plaintiff, ○○○ City had been constructed by each building on the ground of ○○○ City, and ○○○○○ City had been used by succession to ○○ City, and thereafter, the ownership of each land of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff. In light of such circumstances, the contributor of each land of this case did not have any intent to evade this law, and thus, Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied.

In addition, Article 48 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "a case where a public-service corporation allows the use or profit-making of the pertinent property by means of lease, loan for consumption, loan for use, etc." refers to the case where a public-service corporation allows the use of the property that is not used for its proper purpose by the above method. Since the plaintiff establishes a collateral security right on each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case and uses the amount of KRW 3.2 billion borrowed and used it as a school operating expenses, it is interpreted that Article 48 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not apply to the case where the land of this case is used for the proper purpose and at the same time as an incidental special-related person, it is in line with the legislative intent of the above provision."

(B) Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The first sentence of Article 39(3) of the Enforcement Decree should be stipulated as the property donated "the value equivalent to the economic benefit that was used and profit-making," and without any special grounds, the Enforcement Decree provides that "the value of the property donated, not the cost for use and profit-making, shall be deemed as the property donated, and the value of the property shall be imposed on the property donated." The first sentence of Article 39(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of delegation under Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, the imposition of the gift tax of this case is unlawful." (C) The new ○○○ City acquired the right of free use of each of the land of this case from new ○○○ City and newly constructed each of the buildings of this case on that ground. In other words, the new ○○ City purchased the right of free use of each of the land of this case under the premise that each of this case acquired the right.

(D) Of each of the instant lands, ○○○○-si ○○○-dong 312-4, 685-12, 687-3, 688, 688-1, and 688-8 land was transferred to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2003 as the ownership of the instant land was transferred to ○○○○○-○○ corporation, and thereafter, the ownership of the instant land was transferred to ○○○○○○ corporation. Accordingly, ○○-si, the owner of each of the instant lands during the said period, owned the relevant land at the time when the Plaintiff owned the ownership of each of the instant land. Accordingly, the imposition of the gift tax on the premise that each of the instant land was used without compensation by ○○○-si, the owner of the building, should be deemed to have occupied the relevant land. Accordingly,

(E) The imposition of gift tax of this case on the ground that each of the instant land was constructed on the part of each of the instant land without specifically verifying the site, passage, etc. of the instant building among each of the instant land, and on the sole basis that each of the instant buildings was constructed, is unlawful.

(F) The rent-making profit per use of each of the instant land from February 9, 200 to January 24, 2003 by New Dog-si, etc. is limited to KRW 252,495,00,000, but the amount that was not refunded to the Plaintiff after having been lent as operating expenses, etc. between May 9, 2001 and January 2003 by new Dog-si, etc., is equal to the payment of rent for the use of each of the instant land by new Dog-si, etc., in the end, since the amount that was not refunded to the Plaintiff was KRW 39,71,00.

(G) From among each of the instant buildings, new Dog-dong buildings (686-2 A, B-dong buildings, 711 ground buildings, and 715 ground buildings) made the Plaintiff gain economic benefits by establishing a collateral security for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received such economic benefits and made the Plaintiff use and benefit from each of the instant land. Therefore, the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case on the premise that new Dog-si, etc. used and profit from each of the instant land without compensation is unlawful.

(2) As to the imposition of corporate tax

(A) The provision of the wrongful calculation division, which deemed as free use of land among special-related parties under Article 88(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act applied by the Defendant, should be presumed to be the premise that the Plaintiff is operating a profit-making business, and considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s rental revenue is not included in the Plaintiff’s business purpose, and that the amount deposited by the new insurance company to the Plaintiff exceeds the amount of rent

(B) The Defendant imposed corporate tax by deeming the entire parcel of the instant building as occupying and using the entire parcel without checking whether each of the instant buildings occupies any part of the instant land. Therefore, the disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case, which deemed that the portion not used by the new △△, etc. is a free use by the new △, etc., is unlawful.

(C) From among each of the instant buildings, Do-dong buildings (686-2 A, B-dong buildings, 711 ground buildings and 715 ground buildings) provided that the Plaintiff may gain economic benefits by establishing a collateral security for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received such economic benefits and made the Plaintiff use and benefit from each of the instant land by Do-si, etc. Accordingly, the disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case on the premise that Do-si, etc. used the instant land without compensation.

(D) Even if the imposition of the gift tax is lawful, it constitutes double taxation and illegal to impose a gift tax on a single factual basis.

(b) the relevant regulations;

Article 48 (Non-Inclusion, etc. in Taxable Value of Property Invested by Public Interest Corporations, etc.)

(3) Where a public-service corporation, etc. allows a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs to use or profit from the property, etc. contributed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) by means of lease, loan for consumption, lending for use, etc. of the relevant property, the value prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be deemed a donation by the public-service corporation, etc. and the gift tax shall be levied immediately on such property: Provided, That this shall not apply

1. Contributor and his relative;

2. Other public-interest corporations, etc. contributed by contributors.

3. Persons in special relationship with those referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

(4) In the application of the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) and (8), the scope of persons in a special relationship, the criteria for determining whether to use directly for public interest projects, the scope of public interest corporations not specially related to an enterprise group subject to the restriction on mutual investment, etc., the scope of domestic corporations not specially related to the contributors of the relevant public interest corporations, the scope of contributors in a

Article 12 (Scope of Public Interest Corporations, etc.)

The term "public-service corporation, etc." in Article 16 (1) of the Act means a person who conducts a business falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

2. Business establishing and operating schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act;

Article 39 (Imposition of Gift Tax on Internal Transactions by Public Interest Corporations, etc.)

(1) "Person in a special relationship" in Article 48 (3) 3 of the Act means a person in a relationship falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and includes a person in a relationship under the provisions of Article 13 (6) 1 with a contributor referred to in subparagraphs 2 through 5:

1. Where the contributor is a juristic person established under the provisions of Article 32 of the Civil Act, the contributor to the juristic person and his relatives;

2. In case where the contributor is a juristic person other than those in subparagraph 1, the person controlling the juristic person concerned through the investment and his relatives.

(2) The term "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 48 (3) of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the property received as contribution is used by a person falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 48 (3) of the Act within three months from the date of receiving such contribution;

(3) "Value prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 48 (3) of the Act means the value of the relevant contributed property where a person falling under any subparagraph of the same paragraph has been allowed to use it or make profits from it free of charge, and where a person has been allowed to use it or make profits from it at a price lower than that of a normal

[General Provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act] 48-396 [Imposition of Gift Tax on Self- Trade in Public Interest Corporations, etc.]

(1) The taxable value of donated property under Article 39 (3) of the Decree shall be any of the following subparagraphs where a public-service corporation, etc. allows the contributor, etc. to use and profit from the property, etc. contributed:

1. Where using or making profits from the property free of charge: The value of the relevant property contributed;

2. Where he/she permits the use and profit-making for a low price:

The value of the property contributed to X (normal price - Actual price paid)/ Normal price

[○] Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act (Scope of Taxable Income)

(1) Corporate tax shall be imposed on the following income: Provided, That for non-profit domestic corporations and foreign corporations, it shall be imposed only on income under subparagraph 1:

1. Income for each business year; and

(2) Income of a non-profit domestic corporation for each business year shall be income generated from business or revenue under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "profit-making business"):

1. Earnings generated from businesses prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as manufacturing, construction, wholesale or retail sales, consumer product repair, real estate, rental, and provision of business services;

Article 52 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Acts and Subordinate Statutes)

(1) Where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office deems that the tax burden of a domestic corporation has been unjustly reduced through transactions with persons in a special relationship prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "specially related persons"), he/she may calculate the amount of income for each business year of the corporation without regard to the act or calculation of the amount of income of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as "unlawful calculation").

Article 88 (Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act)

(1) "Where it is deemed that the tax burden has been unjustly reduced" in Article 52 (1) of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

6. Where cash and other assets or services are provided with no compensation or at an interest rate, tariff, or rental rate lower than the market price: Provided, That this shall not apply where company housing is provided to officers who are not stockholders or investors (including officers who are minority shareholders under Article 87 (2)) and employees;

(c) Fact of recognition;

위에서 든 각 증거에 갑 제4호 증의 1 내지 10, 갑 제5호 증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제7호 증의 1 내지 12, 갑 제8호 증, 갑 제14호 증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제15호 증, 갑 제16호 증의 1, 2, 을 제4, 5호 증의 각 1, 2, 을 제6호 증, 을 제12호 증의 1 내지 6, 을 제15호 증의 1 내지 7, 을 제16호 증의 1 내지 4, 을 제17 내지 23호 증, 을 제24호 증의 1 내지 3, 을 제25 내지 28호 증의 각 1, 2, 을 제29호 증의 1 내지 7, 을 제30호 증의 1, 2의 각 기재, 증인 신■■의 일부 증언 및 이 법원의 현장검증결과와 변론의 전 취지를 종합하면 다음 각 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(1) Donation, etc. by new ○○

(A) On February 13, 1988, after acquiring the Plaintiff’s corporation (the title at that time was a school foundation’s private teaching institute), new ○○○ donated the land of 19 lots, including each of the instant land owned by it, to the Plaintiff on February 13, 1988.

(나) 신○○가 위 19필지 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하지 아니하자 원고는 신○○가 위 19필지 토지를 원고 법인에 증여하면서 작성한 출연서 및 각서를 근거로 신○○를 상대로 위 19필지 토지에 대하여 1988. 2. 13.자 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하여 1심(서울지방법원 ○○○지원 ○○가합○○○○호), 2심(서울○○법원 ○○나○○○○○호)을 거쳐(소송도중인 1997. 2. 21. 신○○가 사망함으로써 그의 유족인 처 정○○ 및 자녀들인 신□□, 신△△, 신◎◎, 신∇∇, 신☆☆, 신●●이 신○○를 소송수계 하였고, 원고법인의 이사장인 신□□은 원고 청구를 받아들인 것으로 보인다) 1999. 12. 13. 대법원(대법원 ○○다○○○○○호)에서 최종적으로 승소하였다. 그 후 원고는 위 각 토지에 대하여 2000. 2. 9. 그 명의의 소유권이전등기를 경료 하였다.

(2) New construction, etc. of a ○○○-si residential house

(A) Around 1975, ○○○○○○-si newly built 66 households of this case with ○○○-si, ○○○-si, 312-4, 685-12, 686-2, 687-3, 688-8, 711, and 715 on the land, 2, 80-dong houses with 197 (hereinafter referred to as 8 houses constructed on the above 7 lots of land, hereinafter referred to as 196 houses with 196 households of this case, and 7,920,000,000,000 won were leased to ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, and 1,000,000 won were to be leased to ○○-si and 1,000,000 won were to be leased to ○○-si by 9,57.

"A building is constructed on each land of ○○○-si, ○○-dong, 687-1, 688, 688-1, 689-1, 689-11, and 715-1, which is the remaining land except the land on which an annual house among each land of this case was constructed. The current status is as stated in [Attachment 2] Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 12 [Attachment 2], and (4] the fourth unit of the building of this case.

(A) On April 10, 200, 200, ○○○○○, ○○○ 686-2, ○○○○○, ○○○ 686-2, and 715 above ground buildings, such as Boodong, the new ○○ Bank, a maximum debt amount of KRW 1,950,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the debtor as the plaintiff, and on March 18, 2002, the new ○ Agricultural Cooperative completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security with the debtor as the plaintiff.

In addition, on March 9, 2001 with respect to the same 7.11 ground building, ○○ Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., which made a registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the debtor as the plaintiff. On March 18, 2002, ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, ○○○○ Agricultural Cooperative, the debtor as the plaintiff, respectively, completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the debtor as the plaintiff.

(B) On the basis of the foregoing right to collateral security, the Plaintiff foundation obtained a total of KRW 3,234,600,000 from ○○ Bank, etc. and used it as operating expenses, etc.

(5) The current status of each of the buildings of this case constructed on each of the lands of this case and the use status of each of the lands of this case are as stated in the attached Table 2, "the current status of land and buildings", and (6) each of the dispositions of this case,

(A) On February 9, 200, the Defendant: (a) deemed that seven (7) persons, such as new Dokdong, a heir, etc., donated each of the instant land to the Plaintiff by having the Plaintiff use the land without compensation to three (3) owners of each of the instant buildings constructed on the ground; and (b) determined on February 9, 200, the amount appraised as the officially announced land price at the time when ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff; and (c) imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff. The appraised amount, which served as the basis for calculating the amount of gift tax of each of the instant land, and the

[Appraisal Value of official land values by parcel number in 199]

No.

J. J. J. land

Area of a square meter;

officially announced land value (per thousand won/land value)

Value assessed (,000 won)

1

○○○○ ○○ 312-4

167.0

576

96,192.0

2

685-12

693.0

784

543,312.0

3

686-2

1774.8

807

1,432,263.6

4

687-1

107.6

507

54,553.2

5

687-3

1393.4

799

1,113,326.6

6

688

287.0

725

208,075.0

7

688-1

188.2

501

94,288.2

8

688-8

90.1

799

791,089.9

9

689-11

141.9

721

102,309.9

10

Dong 711

762.2

783

596,802.6

11

Dong 715

1035.6

807

835,729.2

12

Dong 715-1

142.7

728

103,885.6

Total guidances

5,971,827.8

【Gift Property donated to each donor】

donor

Legal Inheritance Shares in Inheritance

Value of donated property ( thousand won)

Grounds for Calculation

Ma-○ (spouse)

1.5/7.5

1,944,364

5,971,827X1.5/7.5

Dog-si (Woo)

1/7.5

796,244

5.971,827X1/7.5

Hyburi (i)

1/7.5

796,244

5,971,827X1/7.5

New △△△ (Person)

1/7.5

796,244

5,971,827X1/7.5

Madern knifs

1/7.5

796,244

5,971,827X1/7.5

신∇∇(자)

1/7.5

796,244

5,971,827X1/7.5

New Seoul Special Metropolitan City(i)

1/7.5

796,244

5,971,827X1/7.5

Total guidances

1

5,971,828

(나) 또한 피고는 원고가 공익목적으로 출연 받은 이 사건 각 토지를 원고와 특수 관계자인 신□□ 등 3인에게 무상으로 사용하게 함으로써 원고 법인에 대한 조세의 부담을 부당히 감소시킨 것으로 부당행위계산의 부인 금액을 계산하여 각 사업연도의 소득금액으로 익금 산입하여 법인세 과세표준을 재계산하여 각 해당사업연도 법인세를 추가로 결정, 고지하였다. 각 사업연도 법인세 과세표준 산출근거는 다음과 같다(신●●은 689-11 토지분, 신■■는 687-1 토지분이고, 신□□은 나머지 토지 전체분임).

[2] unit of 200 business year (from March 1, 1999 to February 29, 200): Won

Free users

The amount denied by wrongful calculation in the 2000 business year

non-higher

Period

Number of days

Value of land;

Interest rate (%)

Calculation Amount 1

Dok-si

9.200.20

Above 201.28

19

5,814,964,900

7.5

11,351,130

(1) The publicly announced land price = X50% X/365X Time deposit interest rate

New Sea

7.200.20

Above 201.28

19

102,309,900

7.5

199,700

신■■

7.200.20

Above 201.28

19

54,553,200

7.5

106,500

Total

11,657,300

[2] unit of business year (from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2001): Won

Free users

The amount denied by wrongful calculation in the business year 2001

non-higher

Period

Number of days

Value of land;

Interest rate (%)

Calculation Amount 1

Dok-si

1, 200

Above 200 June 30, 200

122

5,814,964,900

7.5

72,886,203

(1) The publicly announced land price = X50% X/365X Time deposit interest rate

July 1, 200

Above 201.28

243

5,790,581,200

7.5

144,566,222

New Sea

1, 200

Above 200 June 30, 200

122

102,309,900

7.5

1,243,400

July 1, 200

Above 201.28

243

100,181,400

7.5

2,501,100

신■■

1, 200

Above 200 June 30, 200

122

54,553,200

7.5

638,800

July 1, 200

Above 201.28

243

54,553,200

7.5

1,362,000

Total

23,242,725

[2] unit of business year (from March 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002)

Free users

The amount denied by wrongful calculation in the business year 2002

non-higher

Period

Number of days

Value of land;

Interest rate (%)

Calculation Amount 1

Dok-si

d. 1, 2001

Above 201 April 2, 2001

33

5,790,581,200

7.5

19,632,449

(1) The publicly announced land price = X50% X/365X Time deposit interest rate

o April 3, 2001

Above 202.28

332

5,790,581,200

7.5

152,744,426

New Sea

d. 1, 2001

Above 201 April 2, 2001

33

102,309,900

7.5

39,600

o April 3, 2001

Above 202.28

332

100,181,400

7.5

2,642,600

신■■

d. 1, 2001

Above 201 April 2, 2001

33

54,553,200

7.5

184,900

o April 3, 2001

Above 202.28

332

54,553,200

7.5

1,439,000

Total

176,982,975

[2] unit of business year (from March 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003): Won

Free users

The amount denied by wrongful calculation in the business year 2003

non-higher

Period

Number of days

Value of land;

Interest rate (%)

Calculation Amount 1

Dok-si

1, 202

Above 202.3.27

27

5,790,581,200

5.8

12,421,986

(1) The publicly announced land price = X50% X/365X Time deposit interest rate

28, 2002

Above 202.6.30

95

5,790,581,200

4.6

34,664,164

. 1, 2002

Above 203.1.24

208

6,079,360,500

4.6

79,681,262

New Sea

d. 1, 2001

Above 201 April 2, 2001

27

100,181,400

5.8

241,900

o April 3, 2001

Above 202.28

95

100,181,400

4.6

599,700

. 1, 2002

Above 203.1.24

208

104,722,200

4.6

1,372,600

신■■

d. 1, 2001

Above 201 April 2, 2001

27

54,553,200

5.8

117,000

o April 3, 2001

Above 202.28

95

54,553,200

4.6

326,600

. 1, 2002

Above 203.1.24

208

57,243,200

4.6

750,300

Total

130,175,512

D. Determination

(1) As to the imposition of gift tax

(A) First part of the argument

The purpose of Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to prevent evasion of the law, which practically seeks to avoid gift tax by having a public-service corporation use or make profit from the property contributed by it to a specially related person, as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, Article 48 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that, in principle, the property contributed by a public-service corporation, etc. shall not be included in the taxable value, but in certain cases under Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be deemed donated, and the gift tax shall be imposed on such property. This purport is that the Plaintiff’s ownership of each land of this case is deemed to have the intention to substantially avoid gift tax if it falls under Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, even if the Plaintiff corporation used or made profit from each land of this case by leasing it to a third party prior to the acquisition of ownership, if the special-related person did not take any measure such as using the land after the acquisition of ownership of each land of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not apply to the case where the Plaintiff uses each of the lands of this case for the proper purpose business and at the same time to the special person concerned. However, Article 48 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in principle, does not include the property contributed by the public interest corporation in the taxable value, and excludes the subject of the gift tax from the subject of the gift tax. However, in cases where the property contributed is used for the purpose of business and profit-making to the special person concerned, the gift tax should be imposed by deeming it as being donated within a certain scope. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the provision of Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be ruled out on the ground that each

As such, the Plaintiff borrowed money from a financial institution with the land of this case as collateral, and thus, the equivalent amount shall be deducted from the gift value of this case. However, unless Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides otherwise as to whether the pertinent property is used by the public interest corporation, etc., the value of the donated property cannot be viewed as being alleged by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is without merit.

(B) Second argument

Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the donated property shall be deemed as the property, not the value of the donated property, in the case of free use, and thus, shall be deemed null and void because it goes beyond the scope of delegation under Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act." The main text of Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The amount of the donated property shall be deemed as a donation to a person with a certain relationship," and that "the amount of the donated property shall be deemed as the value of the donated property, if it is extremely less than the value of the donated property, and the amount of the donated property shall be deemed as the value of the donated property, and it shall be deemed that there is no violation of the legal principle regarding "the amount of the donated property," and Article 39(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the amount of the donated property shall be deemed as the value of the donated property."

The Plaintiff acquired the right of free use of each of the instant lands owned by ○○ City. As a matter of course, since ○○○ City acquired the right of free use of each of the instant lands, the provisions of Article 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied. However, as seen earlier, ○○○ City sold the instant land on the ground of the instant land, which was owned by ○○○○○, by means of newly constructing the instant connected house on the ground of the instant land and being repaid in installments to ○○○○○. The Plaintiff acquired the right of disposal of each of the instant land upon completion of its redemption until 199, and the ownership of each of the instant land was transferred only to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s right of free use of the instant land cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the instant land by ○○○○ City. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is without merit.

(D) Fourth claim portion

On February 7, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant lands to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 312-4, 685-12, 687-3, 688, 688-1, and 688-8, from among each of the instant lands, the ownership of each of the instant lands was transferred from the Plaintiff to ○○○○○○○○○, and thereafter, the ownership of each of the instant lands was transferred from ○○, ○○, a building owner at the time when the Plaintiff owns the ownership of each of the instant lands, and the new ○○○, a building owner at ○○○○, was not the owner of the said lands, and thus does not occupy the land corresponding to the relevant

The above ground-based building on the ○○○-dong 312-4, among the apartment houses of this case, should be disposed of on November 2, 2006 to the above ground-based building on the 685-12, the above ground-based building on the 687-3, the above ground-based building on the 688-8, which had been disposed of on August 14, 2003, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on April 15, 2003 at ○○○○○, and at the same time on the 688-8, the above ground-based building on the 196-1, the above ground-based building on the 28-1, 24, 24, 1, 25-1, 28, 1, 28-1, 3, 9, 1, 1, 2, 2, 197, and 1, 3-1, 3, 1, 3-1, 6, 1, 6.

On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the above 688 and 688-1 of the above 688 and 688-1 of the above 68 were transferred in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and for the same reason, the plaintiff did not possess the above land during the period in which he owned the above land. However, according to the evidence Nos. 4-8 and No. 16-3 of the above 688, 688-1 of the above 688 and 688-1 of the building register, the above 688 and 688-1 of the building register was registered in the name of Da○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

(E) Fifth asserted part

Even if each of the buildings of this case was constructed on each of the lands of this case, the Plaintiff is deemed to possess and use only the part corresponding to the site by owning each of the buildings of this case. Thus, the remainder of the land except the land of this case should be excluded from the property contributed by the Plaintiff corporation.

The building owner of each of the buildings of this case and the lessee of each of the buildings of this case occupied, used, and profit from each of the buildings of this case to a third party. Accordingly, as seen earlier, the lessee of each of the buildings of this case occupied, used each of the buildings of this case as a marina, garden, parking lot, or material storage place, etc., as seen above. If there is a circumstance, the new owner of each of the buildings of this case owned each of the buildings of this case and owned each of the buildings of this case to a third party, and each of the buildings of this case allowed each of the buildings of this case to occupy, use, and use the part corresponding to the site of each of the buildings of this case as well as to allow each of the lessees to occupy, use, and profit from, the remaining parts of the land of this case except the site of each of the buildings of this case. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the new Do

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(f) The fifth part of the claim

The plaintiff's loan 63,60,00 won is stated in the settlement of accounts and audit report of 8,90,00 won and the settlement amount of the land of this case is 00 won, and the loan 260,924,459 won is 260,000 won and the loan 260,000 won is 260,000 won and 197,310,569 won is 30,000 won and the loan 260,000 won is 1,00,000 won and 1,00,000 won were 1,00,000,000 won were 1,00,000 won were 1,00,000 won were 1,00,000 won were 1,00,000 won were 20,000 won were 30,000 won and 4,07,000 won were 1,00 won were 297.

(G) the first part of the claim

The Plaintiff’s imposition of the gift tax of this case on the premise that the new insurance company, etc. received a free use of and profit from each of the land of this case, since the new insurance company established and granted the right to collateral security on the fourth building among the buildings of this case so that the Plaintiff may obtain a substantial economic benefit therefrom.

The plaintiff corporation is the debtor, and the ○○○○○○○-dong 686-2, Dong-dong 686-2, Dong-dong 715, registered the creation of a mortgage on April 10, 200 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,950,00,000 for Dong-dong 715, and registered the creation of a mortgage on March 9, 2001 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 825,00,000 for Dong-dong 711, and again registered the establishment of a mortgage on March 18, 200 for each of the above buildings with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,54,00,000 for 1,50,000,000 for 1,54,000,000 for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 715,000,000 won.

On the other hand, in case where the debtor, in receiving a loan from a financial institution, etc., received a collateral value equivalent to the secured claim amount within the scope of the value of the real estate from a third party, which is owned by the debtor, within the scope of the maximum debt amount, and thus, the debtor has received economic benefits accrued therefrom from the debtor shall be equivalent to the above value of the secured claim. However, the plaintiff corporation obtained economic benefits equivalent to the above value of the secured claim amount by receiving each of the above buildings from the new insurance company from the new insurance company.

Therefore, it is further examined whether the act of offering security for each of the above buildings of Dolsan can be seen as a kind of payment for the use of each of the land of this case.

비록 위 각 건물을 담보로 제공함에 있어 원고 법인과 신□□ 사이에 그 제공에 따른 대가의 지급 등에 관하여 어떠한 명시적인 약정이 있었음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없기는 하나, 이는 이 사건 각 토지를 사용 · 수익하는 자가 원고 법인의 이사장인 신□□, 신□□의 아들인 신○○, 신□□의 동생인 신■■ 등으로 원고 법인과 특수한 관계에 있어 원고 법인으로서는 소송을 통하여 이 사건 각 토지에 대한 소유권을 취득한 2000. 2. 9. 이후, 그 이전부터 이 사건 각 토지상에 건축되어있던 신□□ 등 소유 건물의 존재나 또 신□□ 등이 위 각 건물을 소유하면서 이를 제3자에 임대하는 등으로 이 사건 각 토지를 사용 · 수익하고 있음에 대하여 그 사용료를 징수하는 등 별다른 문제제기를 한 바 없고, 신□□ 역시 원고 법인의 이사장으로서 그 소유인 위 각 건물을 원고 법인에게 담보로 제공함에 있어 어떠한 대가를 받아야 한다는 인식이 없었기 때문인 것으로 보여 진다.

As to the above circumstances and the above 686-2-A, B, B, B, and B, B, and B, B, and 715-2, the Plaintiff corporation acquired ownership of each of the above lands (the proviso to Article 48 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 39 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act excludes the statutory provision on the constructive gift in the case of use by a specially related person only within three months from the date of receiving the contribution of the property contributed) from February 9, 200, which was within three months from February 9, 200. In a case where the Plaintiff corporation offered the property as security and obtained economic benefits from the Plaintiff corporation, it would be reasonable to view that the use and profit-making of each of the above 686-2 and 715 land by the Plaintiff corporation and the use of collateral for each of the above 711-ground buildings by the Plaintiff corporation were in a relationship of consideration. As to the above 711-ground building, the Plaintiff corporation acquired ownership of the above land from 30.

The plaintiff's offering of security for each of the above buildings in Dol-gu as above is the price for the use of all of the land of this case. However, in light of the circumstances of the offering of security as seen above, the plaintiff's offering of security for each of the above buildings cannot be deemed as the price for the use of each of the above buildings including the land of this case where each of the above buildings is constructed. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on each of the remaining lands except the above 686-2 and 715 cannot be accepted.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the new Do governor, among each land of this case, used the above 686-2 land and 715 land free of charge and profit therefrom. In such a case, the defendant calculated the reasonable price for the use and profit therefrom and examined whether it was lower than the normal price, and if such price is lower than the normal price, it shall be deemed as a donation by the plaintiff corporation only for the value of the contributed property equivalent to the difference, and the gift tax should be imposed by deeming that it was entirely donated, and thus, the part on the above 686-2 and 715 land among the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case is unlawful. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is with merit only for the above part.

Furthermore, in regard to whether the price for the provision of each of the above buildings as collateral is lower than the normal price or lower than the normal price for the use and profit of the above buildings, the reasonable price for the use and profit of the above 686-2 and 715 land shall be the amount equivalent to the rent for the land. The economic profit from the provision of each of the above buildings as collateral shall be the profit using the collateral value equivalent to the secured claim amount within the limit of the maximum debt amount within the limit of the value of each building, and the profit from the use of the above collateral value shall not be calculated as a specific amount. Accordingly, the gift tax portion on the above 682-2 land and the entire land shall not be revoked.

(h) Sub-determination

Therefore, since the part on the above 686-2, 715 land is illegal among the disposition imposing the gift tax in this case, it is revoked, and when calculating the legitimate amount of gift tax for the remaining land, it is as stated in each item of the calculation table of the amount of gift tax in attached Form 3.

(2) As to the argument about the imposition of corporate tax

(A) Determination on the first argument

According to Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 88 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a domestic corporation's tax burden on its income is deemed to have been unjustly reduced due to transactions with a special relationship, it shall be calculated as the income amount of the corporation.

In the case of this case, as seen earlier, the new insurance company, etc., specially related with the plaintiff, uses each of the land of this case for free and without paying the price (excluding the land of this case ○○○○○○ 686-2 and 715), and even a non-profit corporation with public interest purposes, it is obligated to pay corporate tax in the case of income arising from profit-making business, such as real estate lease business, etc. under Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act. The amount that the new insurance company lent to the plaintiff corporation is merely the amount of the loan claim that the new insurance company should return from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and it is merely that the new insurance company, etc., which was specially related with the plaintiff, has paid it to the plaintiff as rent for each of the land of this case, and there is no set-off between the new insurance company and the new insurance company, etc., so that the defendant's act unreasonably reduced the plaintiff's income amount by using each of the land of this case without compensation, and it cannot be deemed unlawful as alleged in the disposition of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Judgment on the second argument

The plaintiff constructed each of the buildings of this case in part of each of the land of this case, but the defendant considered the whole land of this case as the site of the building and imposed corporate tax on this premise. However, as determined in the above (1) (e), the new Dolsan et al. used and profit from the whole land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(C) Judgment on the third argument

In this case, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff obtained economic benefits by being provided with each building located in ○○○○○, ○○○, 715, which is owned by the Plaintiff as collateral from a financial institution and using it as operating expenses for the Plaintiff’s corporation, and that such benefits were paid for using the land above 686-2, 715. Thus, the Defendant calculated the economic benefits acquired by the Plaintiff corporation at the value and calculated the economic benefits, and calculated it as an unfair act only less than the reasonable price compared with the price for the legitimate use and profit of the land, etc., and should have been included in the income amount for each business year of the Plaintiff, on the premise that the new ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, 00-dong, ○○, 715. The Plaintiff calculated the corporate tax of this case on the premise that the new ○○, ○○, ○○, and 715.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

In addition, the argument that new Dol-si provided the above 711 ground buildings as security, and thus it should be deemed that the price for use and profit-making has been paid. However, the argument that the above security of each of the above buildings is the price for use of the entire land of this case cannot be accepted as seen in the above (1) (g).

(D) Judgment on the fourth argument

The plaintiff's imposition of corporate tax following the gift tax on one factual basis is illegal as double taxation. However, since gift tax and corporate tax differ from each other in terms of taxation requirements, it should be imposed separately in accordance with each taxation requirements, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(e) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the corporate tax portion calculated by adding the above 686-2 and 715 to the Plaintiff’s annual income in each business year among the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case is illegal. Thus, if only the cost of using the remaining land, excluding the cost of using the above 2 parcels, among the cost of using each land of this case, is calculated by calculating the denied amount of wrongful calculation for each business year, it is identical to the entries in the calculation of the denied amount of wrongful calculation for each business year, and if this amount is calculated by calculating the legitimate corporate tax amount after calculating the Plaintiff’s income from each business year, it is identical to the statement in the item of tax

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part that exceeds the amount of each gift tax item on January 6, 2005 for each donor in the separate sheet of imposition of gift tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff on January 6, 2005 and each business year in the same list of imposition of corporate tax shall not be exempted from revocation as it is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(Attached 1) List of Impositions

Date of Imposition

Items of Taxation

Original tax amount (cost)

(including additional duties)

Justifiable tax amount (source)

(including additional duties)

Jinay

January 6, 2005

Gift Tax

44,843,840

27,122,159

Ma○○ (1.5/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

Dolsan (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

Hyba (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

New △△△ (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

Dried knives (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

New fact-finding (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

250,422,480

124,276,515

New Seoul Special Metropolitan City (1/7.5)

Gift Tax

Total

1,947,378,720

972,781,249

January 6, 2005

Corporate Tax

3,522,369

2,184,641

200 business year

Of March 1, 1999 to February 29, 2000

Corporate Tax

86,160,563

45,761,224

201 Business year

(1) Around February 28, 2001

Corporate Tax

49,888,440

26,230,110

202 Business year

Of March 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002

Corporate Tax

29,728,428

16,596,709

203 Business year

(2) From March 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003

Corporate Tax

Total

169,299,800

90,772,684

(Attached 2) Current status of land and buildings

Parcel Number

(○○○ City)

○○ Dong

Area

Buildings

Buildings

Preservation Registration

Buildings

Relocation Registration

Current status of land use;

1

312-4

167С

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

50.67 square meters per floor

2. 50.67 square meters for 2 stories

November 2, 2006

○ ○○

November 2, 2006

Dok-si

Building sites and gardens

2

685-12

693С

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

181.19 square meters per floor;

2 181.19 square meters on two floors;

o3, 203

○ ○○

o3, 203

Dok-si

Building site, parking lot,

Article 2 (Classification into Materials Storage Places)

3

686-2

1774.8 square meters;

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

175.57m2 per floor

2nd floor 175.57 square meters

Annex 72С

o April 1, 200

○ ○○

o April 1, 200

Dok-si

April 10, 200

Mortgage

Building site, mail, garden, parking lot, etc.

(Unauthorized buildings and classification into fences)

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

94.74㎡ per floor

2nd floor 94.74 square meters

4

687-1

107.6С.

The third floor building without permission;

Unauthorized Permission

신■■

Building Site

5

687-3

1393.4С

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

255.11 square meters per floor.

2.2 255.11m2

August 14, 2003

○ ○○

August 13, 2003

Dok-si

Building site, parking lot, etc.

6

688

287С

Neighborhood Facilities

166.81 square meter per underground floor

1 to 5 floors above ground;

Each 385.89 square meters;

35.2 square meters of a rooftop floor;

6.11

Dok-si

Building Site

7

688-1

188.2㎡

8

688-8

90.1 square meter.

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

24.07 square meters per floor.

224.07 square meters per 2 stories

April 15, 2003

○ ○○

April 15, 2003

Dok-si

Building site, parking lot, etc.

9

689-11

141.9С

Neighborhood Facilities and Housing

1 to 3 floors;

Each 81.58㎡;

111.68 square meters of geological layer 11.68 square meters

August 20, 1997

Hyo

August 20, 1997

New Sea

Building Site

10

711

762.2 square meters;

Store and Housing

420.99 square meters per floor

2nd floor 420.99 square meters

March 9, 2001

○ ○○

March 9, 2001

Dok-si

March 9, 2001

Mortgage

Building site, parking lot, etc.

11

715

1035.6㎡

Store and Housing

456.43 square meters per floor.

2nd floor 456.43 square meters

o April 1, 200

○ ○○

o April 1, 200

Dok-si

April 10, 200

Mortgage

Building site, dormitory marina;

(Classification into fences)

12

715-1

142.7㎡

Gowons and offices

(44.99С)

Building Ledger

July 9, 1974

Hyo

Registration of name;

Building site (to be classified into a fence)

(Attached 3)Calculation of Amount of gift tax

Name

Equity Holdings

The calculation of the taxable value of donated property;

Tax Rate

calculated tax amount

Additional Tax

Total determined tax amount

Amount of tax notified after deduction

Original Decision

Deduction

This case

Impossibility of Report

Good Faith in Payment

Ma-○

1.5/7.5

1,194,365,602

453,598,560

740,767,042

30%

162,230,113

32,446,023

32,446,023

27,122,159

27,122,159

Dok-si

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

New Sea

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

New △△△

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

Dried Crime

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

[Attachment]

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

New Governing Province

1/7.5

796,243,733

302,399,040

493,844,693

20%

8,768,939

17,753,788

17,753,788

124,276,515

124,276,515

Total

7.5/7.5

5,971,828,000

2,267,992,800

3,703,835,200

694,843,747

138,968,751

138,968,751

972,781,249

972,781,249

(attached Form 4) The calculation of the annual unfair calculation report;

200 Business Year (from March 1, 1999 to February 29, 200)

Classification

Value of land;

Exclusioned Two Parcels

Target Amount

The amount of unfair conduct

New Sea

신■■

Aggregate of Unfair Conducts

Consolidateds

Original Decision

5,814,964,900

5,814,964,900

11,351,130

199,700

106,500

11,657,330

11,657,330

Decision of Correction

5,814,964,900

2,267,992,800

3,546,972,100

6,923,883

199,700

106,500

7,230,083

7,230,083

201 Business Year (from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2001)

Classification

Value of land;

Exclusioned Two Parcels

Target Amount

The amount of unfair conduct

New Sea

신■■

Aggregate of Unfair Conducts

Consolidateds

Original Decision

5,814,964,900

5,814,964,900

72,886,203

1,243,400

683,800

74,813,403

5,790,581,200

5,790,581,200

144,566,222

2,501,100

1,362,000

148,429,322

23,242,725

Decision of Correction

5,814,964,900

2,267,992,800

3,546,972,100

4,458,622

1,243,400

683,800

46,385,822

5,790,581,200

2,248,320,000

3,542,261,200

8,435,219

2,501,100

1,362,000

92,298,319

138,684,141

202 Business Year (from March 1, 2001 to February 28, 2002)

Classification

Value of land;

Exclusioned Two Parcels

Target Amount

The amount of unfair conduct

New Sea

신■■

Aggregate of Unfair Conducts

Consolidateds

Original Decision

5,790,581,200

5,790,581,200

19,632,449

39,600

184,900

20,156,949

5,790,581,200

5,790,581,200

152,744,426

2,642,600

1,439,000

156,826,026

176,982,975

Decision of Correction

5,790,581,200

2,248,320,000

3,542,261,200

12,009,721

39,600

184,900

12,534,221

5,790,581,200

2,248,320,000

3,542,261,200

93,438,057

2,642,600

1,439,000

97,519,657

10,053,878

203 Business Year (from March 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003)

Classification

Value of land;

Exclusioned Two Parcels

Target Amount

The amount of unfair conduct

New Sea

신■■

Aggregate of Unfair Conducts

Total

Original Decision

5,790,581,200

5,790,581,200

12,421,986

241,900

117,000

12,780,886

5,790,581,200

5,790,581,200

34,664,164

599,700

326,600

35,590,464

6,079,360,500

6,079,360,500

79,681,262

1,372,600

750,300

81,804,162

130,175,512

Decision of Correction

5,790,581,200

2,248,320,000

3,542,261,200

7,598,878

241,900

117,000

7,957,778

5,790,581,200

2,248,320,000

3,542,261,200

21,205,043

599,700

326,600

22,131,343

6,079,360,500

2,374,788,000

3,704,572,500

48,555,273

1,372,600

750,300

50,678,173

80,767,294

(Attached Form 5) Details of corporate tax calculation

Gu Sector

200 business year

(5) 2. 1.0

Above 200.29

201 Business year

(1) 200.3.1

Above 201.28

202 Business year

(1) 201.3.1

Above 202.28

203 Business year

(202.3.1

Above 203.28

Account Statement

net income

Income;

Amount

Conciliation

Gross income

7,230,083

138,684,141

10,053,878

80,767,294

Inclusion in Loss

0

0

0

0

Vehicle-Reduction Income Amount

7,230,083

138,684,141

10,053,878

80,767,294

Each business year

Amount of income;

7,230,083

138,684,141

10,053,878

80,767,294

Losses carried forward

Tax Base

7,230,083

138,684,141

10,053,878

80,767,294

Tax Rate

16.0%

28.0%

28.0%

16.0%

calculated tax amount

1,156,813

26,831,559

18,8