Whether the timing of reversion of the income of an attempted interest and the imposition of additional tax are appropriate;

The time of receipt of interest on a loan lent to a foreign subsidiary shall be the time of payment of interest under the agreement, and the time of payment of interest shall be the time of payment, and the account of the plaintiff's suspension of payment of interest shall be reduced. Therefore, it cannot be the appropriate reason for imposing additional tax.

Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 518,196,448 on February 15, 200 against the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 260,93,150 on the imposition disposition of KRW 260,93,150 on the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s revocation of each disposition exceeding KRW 229,363,830 on February 21, 2005 on corporate tax of KRW 377,163,89 on February 21, 2005.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 50% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The imposition of corporate tax of 518,196,448 (including additional tax of 268,00,975), corporate tax of 377,163,889 (including additional tax of 147,80,059) for the business year 2000, which was made on February 15, 2005 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked. The imposition of corporate tax of 377,163,889 (including additional tax of 147,80,059), special rural development tax of 79,791

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 17, 1989, the Plaintiff established ○○ Capital or Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Canadian corporation”) as its subsidiary at ○○○○○○○ city, Canada, and entered into a joint venture agreement with Canadian corporation (investment ratio: Plaintiff 72, and ○○28) with Canadian corporation on December 6, 1990.

B. The Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement with Canada 2 from August 1989 to December 2, 1991 and managed interest rate of 2,858,00 won as outstanding amount by including 2,80,00 won at the rate of 200,000 won, 70,000 won, 270,000 won, 20,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 196,00 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 196,00 won and 70,00 won and 196,00 won and 205,00 won and 7,00 won and 5,06,00 won and 20,00 won and 5,00 won and 7,05,00 won and 7,05,00 won and 2,06,05,05,0

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3 and 5 evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2 to 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Canadian corporation closed its factory on March 20, 1992 due to the aggravation of profitability, etc. and accumulated annual business managers, but it was not possible to sell its residual assets such as real estate and factory facilities due to the depression of real estate games, and completed the liquidation procedures only on November 27, 2003.

Therefore, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that there was no possibility of realizing the instant loan’s attempted interest claim; and (b) reported and paid corporate tax without including the said failed interest claim in gross income in the business year from 1996 to 2002. Therefore, the instant failed interest claim cannot be deemed as income subject to taxation since it was not feasible in the business year 200 and 2001; and (c) thus, the instant disposition that included the pertinent failed interest claim in gross income is unlawful.

(2) Even if not, there are such circumstances as above, and there are justifiable reasons such as not only the failure to include the interest received during the instant disposition in the gross income, but also the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the instant loan and the interest received from the Canadian corporation. Therefore, the part of the penalty tax of this case among the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) From August 1989 to December 1991, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary lending agreement with Canada and lent the instant loan as follows.

No.

Rental Date

Amount of loan ($)

Interest Rate

Conditions of Repayment

1

August 8, 1989

344,000,000

LIBOR + 1%

2. Repayment in equal installments for 8 years with a grace period;

2

July 1990

328,700,000

LBOR + 1%

2. Repayment in equal installments for 8 years with a grace period;

3

December 12, 1990

405,300,000

15%

Repayment by 1 year grace 4.5 year equal installments

4

December 12, 1991

790,000,000

15%

Repayment by 1 year grace 4.5 year equal installments

5

on 12, 1991

90,000,000

15%

2. Repayment in equal installments for 8 years with a grace period;

Total

2,858,000,000

* Interest period: 6 months from the first day to the last day of 6 months;

(2) The Canadian corporation closed the factory on March 20, 192 and notified the local employees of the temporary suspension of the factory on May 30, 192, and notified the Export-Import Bank of Korea of the temporary suspension of the business to the local employees by not later than 203 years since the 1991 and the cumulative cumulative loss during February 192 became worse due to the increase in expenses by local labor union, etc., due to the decline in the demand due to the dumping shipment of the salted fish of Indonesia and China and the use of the disposable wooded fish of Korea, and the increase in expenses by local labor union, etc.

(3) Meanwhile, during the business year from 1999 to 2002, Canada has appropriated the interest on the instant loans as interest on account books ($479,263, Canada), 496,012c, 200, 720,067c, 696,286c, and 415,261c, 202).

(4) On October 30, 2003, a Canadian corporation entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, etc. to acquire and distribute all the remaining assets of the Canadian corporation by appropriating for the repayment of the debt to ○○○○○, the subsidiary company of the Plaintiff in Hong Kong. On November 17, 2003, a settlement procedure was completed on November 17, 2003, and registered the fact of liquidation in the register on November 28, 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6 through 15, 19 through 26 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) The date when the interest income accrued to the account receivable is attributed

(A) Article 40 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the business year in which a domestic corporation’s income and deductible expenses accrue shall be the business year which includes the date on which the relevant income and deductible expenses are determined. In this case, the confirmation of gross income in the Corporate Tax Act refers to the date on which the income subject to taxation is considerably mature. Unlike the interest income of the debtor under the Income Tax Act, the Corporate Tax Act, when considering that the non-collectionable claims due to the debtor’s insolvency are included in the deductible expenses that are deductible from the gross income in calculating the income of each business year of the corporation, unlike the interest income of the corporation under the Income Tax Act, the confirmation of income due to the interest claim under the Corporate Tax Act shall be based on whether the income due to the debtor’s insolvency is considerably mature, and there is no reason to deem otherwise, and if there is no possibility that the debtor’s interest claim can be repaid due to the shortage of assets, it shall be treated as bad debts when it is finalized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du797, May 26, 2004).

(B) As recognized above, since the Plaintiff and Canadian corporations agreed to settle interest accounts every six months from the first day of use ( August 1989), the interest income on the instant loan was due for the pertinent business year from 1990 to which the date of each payment of interest belongs, and the Plaintiff was entitled to receive the interest income accrued during the pertinent business year from 2000 and 2001 under the Corporate Tax Act.

In addition, even though Canada corporation has increased the cumulative total loss from 1991, 192, and around May 30, 1992, the issue of attempted interest and bonds are less likely to be realized in reality due to the shortage of assets of Canada corporation, it is merely a ground for treating them as bad debt when it becomes final and conclusive due to impossibility of recovery, and it does not affect the time of attribution of attempted interest and bonds. Furthermore, as long as this Canadian corporation has run a timber export-import business in a local area by 2003 and has completed liquidation procedures before November 27, 2003, it cannot be completely ruled out that the possibility of the Plaintiff’s repayment of the claim and attempted interest in the business year of this case 200, 2001, the previous Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

(2) Justifiable reasons for an exemption from penalty tax

(A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and is imposed only when the requirements for imposing additional tax, which is, in principle, an occurrence of a breach of duty, are satisfied. The taxpayer’s intentional intent or negligence is not considered. However, such a sanction is not unreasonable because it is not unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty due to a conflict of opinion due to a doubt arising out of the interpretation of the tax law beyond a simple scope of land or misunderstanding in the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du324, Sept. 14, 201; 9Du324, Sept. 14, 2001; 202Du6266, Aug. 23, 2002).

(B) In this case, the part of this case's tax disposition of this case is unlawful since 1996, since Canadian corporations did not include the above attempted interest prior to the disposition of this case and the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant before the disposition of this case, since Canadian corporations were unable to receive the accrued interest (including the accrued interest; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the loan of this case from Canadian corporations in practice since 1992, since it was impossible for the plaintiff to receive the accrued interest (including the accrued interest) from Canadian corporations in order to dispose of the bad debt on the account book at the time of settlement of accounts of 1995 and to deny the tax and reserved interest. Thus, from 1996, the above failed to include the accrued interest in the account book no longer than the previous business year when the plaintiff filed corporate tax return for the business year 1996, and the plaintiff did not point out the above attempted interest prior to the disposition of this case. The plaintiff was actually liquidated around November 27, 2003 and the plaintiff became unable to receive the accrued interest income due to receive the accrued interest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 518,196,48 for the business year of 2000, the penalty tax of KRW 257,203,298 for the business year of this case and the penalty tax of KRW 147,80,059 for the business year of this case shall be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be partially accepted for the reasons within the scope of the above recognition.