1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance in the same part is as follows: 2nd 4th , 7th , 15th , and 3rd 5th , “E” respectively.

The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is " July 6, 2016" as " July 1, 2016."

The 3rd to 15th to 5th to 19th of the first instance judgment are as follows.

(B) Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act, the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act”) is as follows.

(A) The main sentence of Article 11 subparag. 9-2(a) and (b) are the provisional payments and the interest thereof (hereinafter “provisional payments, etc.”) paid to a specially related person under Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act without connection with the business of the pertinent legal entity.

The provisional payment, etc. that has not been recovered by the date on which the special relationship ceases to exist shall be included in the gross income: Provided, That it shall be excluded from the inclusion in the gross income where there are justifiable grounds for not recovering the provisional payment, such as “where it is impossible to recover due to litigation on claims and debts” under the proviso to Article 11 subparag. 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, “where a related party has provided property equivalent to claims to be recovered as a security, or has secured claims by compulsory execution on the property owned by the related party,” “where a related party retains obligations that may offset the claims”, and “where it is deemed justifiable

On the other hand, Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act are as follows.