Income cannot be deemed to have been finally reverted to the Plaintiff.

Only in cases where there are circumstances such as where it can be deemed that a corporation objectively expresses its intention not to recover the damage claim therefor, it may be deemed as a bonus to the person concerned and dispose of it as a disposal of it.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Guhap70322 Revocation of disposition of revocation of global income tax rectification

AA

Head of Ansan Tax Office

April 25, 2017

May 16, 2017

1. Imposition of global income tax of KRW 442,646,320 on May 1, 2016 against the Plaintiff and imposition of KRW 483,689,610 on global income tax of KRW 483,689,610 on June 1, 2016, each of which belongs to the Plaintiff.

(w).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) BB Korean Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) aims to sell optical semesters, etc.;

A company that is a Japanese corporation and owns the entire share of BB by the BB Copos Corporation (Olympus Cpos Corporation).CC comprehensive construction corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CC comprehensive construction") is a company for the purpose of construction business, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who has actually been operating the CCTV comprehensive construction.

B. The CC General Construction shall be effected between BB on December 28, 2007 and BB on December 28, 2007.

The contract for construction work was concluded by setting the construction cost as 15.9 billion won.

C. From August 27, 2013 to January 17, 2014, the head of Samsung District Tax Office: BB’s business year from August 27, 2013 to January 17, 2014

The corporate tax investigation was conducted until the business year (from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2012) and as a result, the representative director D, BB EE, and F (hereinafter referred to as DD, etc.") of BB in collusion with the Plaintiff, etc., found that some of the construction costs related to BB’s new construction works were falsely appropriated as processing expenses.

D. Accordingly, the director of the Samsung Tax Office reported the corporate tax for the business year in which the above tax investigation was conducted.

On the other hand, on March 3, 2014, with respect to BB, the amount found to have been embezzled by D, etc. among the processing costs, was the bonus for D, etc., and the amount found to have been reverted to the Plaintiff, as other income for the Plaintiff, and the amount, the ownership of which is unclear, was treated as a bonus for DD, the representative director, and each change in income amount was notified.

E. BB appealed, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2014, and filed a tax judgment.

The Board of Sales shall grant a bonus of KRW 510 million to D on March 18, 2015 (the bonus of KRW 510,000,000 (the bonus of KRW 201) and the Plaintiff

On March 27, 2015, Samsung Tax Office rendered a decision to cancel the remaining disposition of income other than KRW 1.958 million ( KRW 979 million, KRW 979 million, KRW 979 million, and KRW 2010,000, KRW 2010; hereinafter referred to as "the income of this case"). On March 27, 2015, Samsung Tax Office notified the BB of the changes in the amount of income in accordance with the purport of the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

F. The defendant received notice from the head of Samsung Tax Office of taxation data for the above contents and received such notice from the plaintiff

On May 1, 2016, global income tax amounting to KRW 442,646,320 (including additional tax) for the year 2010, and global income tax amounting to KRW 483,689,610 for the year 2009 on June 1, 2016 (including additional tax) was revised and notified respectively (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

G. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for trial with the Tax Tribunal on July 15, 2016, but on December 2016

7. was dismissed.

H. Meanwhile, on June 15, 2015, BB revoked notice of the change in the income amount against Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office.

On October 7, 2016, the Seoul Administrative Court (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap65872), and on March 3, 2016, the above court rendered a decision that "the third party director of the tax office's tax office's bonus disposition of 400,000 won against D and other income disposition (979,000,000,000 won for 2009, 97979,000,000 won for 2010) against the plaintiff among the notice of change in income amount issued against BB, "the cancellation of the notice of change in income amount of 979,000,000 won for 2010)". BB and the Samsung Director of the tax office both appealed filed an appeal (Seoul High Court 2016Nu7206, Seoul High Court 2017) and the appellate court dismissed both the appeal of the BB and Samsung Director of the tax office on April 13, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in this Court, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul

Statement 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case is based on the notice of change in the income amount to BB by the Director of Samsung Tax Office.

The plaintiff, among the notice of change in the income amount of Samsung Tax Office's BB in the related lawsuit

The disposition of this case is rendered inasmuch as the part on the disposition is deemed unlawful and revoked.

Since it is illegal, it must be cancelled.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

The burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirement in the tax revocation lawsuit is against the tax authority.

(2) If a corporation’s employee acquires damage liability, etc. from a corporation due to an illegal act, such as embezzlement of its funds, etc. for personal benefits regardless of the corporation’s business, the amount equivalent to the amount shall not be immediately deemed to have been discharged from the corporation. In order for the tax authority to take a disposition of income as a non-deductible expense on the ground that a corporation’s loss was processed expenses, the tax authority must prove the fact that the loss was processed expenses, and the special circumstance to deem that the processing expenses was not leaked should be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du14329, Sept. 27, 2012). Meanwhile, where a corporation acquires damage liability, etc. from the corporation to the person, regardless of the corporation’s business, the amount equivalent to the amount shall not be deemed to have been deducted from the corporation, and where the corporation objectively expressed its intention not to recover the damage liability from the corporation, such as the corporation’s pre- or the actual manager’s waiver of collection of claims and waiver of the claim, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the health room for the instant case, and the purport of the entire argument

In full view of the following circumstances, the instant income was released from the company;

Since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was finally reverted to the Plaintiff, this case on a different premise.

Dispositions are illegal.

1. D, etc., KRW 3.180,000,000 for additional construction costs among the new construction works of BB office houses (Additional value)

tax accounting equivalent to KRW 3180,000,000,000 in value from the IntegratedCC Construction

(1) Upon receipt of the certificate, the amount was falsely appropriated as processing expenses, and then the amount was charged to CC General Construction.

B embezzled the amount of KRW 1.5 billion by means of return of KRW 1.5 billion among those payments.

(c)

② The director of the Samsung District Tax Office finds the above facts as a result of corporate tax investigation on BB.

A criminal charge against defective D, etc., and D, etc., the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

On September 5, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gohap387, 410), which was prosecuted by embezzlement, etc., was sentenced to imprisonment, respectively.

③ Meanwhile, on March 27, 2014, BB filed against the Plaintiff and the GeneralCC Construction on March 27, 2014

Since it was involved in embezzlement, it is a joint tortfeasor, and as a joint tortfeasor, the comprehensiveCC construction is the plaintiff's employer.

As such, a claim for damages is filed by asserting that there is liability for damages according to employer liability.

On June 2, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap519912), and the above court rendered a judgment that accepted BB’s claim against the remainder of the damages that DD et al. paid to B, with the recognition of the comprehensive construction ofCC and the Plaintiff’s liability for damages. Accordingly, the Seoul High Court appealed against the comprehensive construction ofCC and the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court 2016Na2048622), and during the appellate trial, BB withdrawn the lawsuit.

④ In the above civil procedure, BB shall compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the income of this case.

There was no claim for damages, and the record BB or its actual manager, etc. against the plaintiff

that objectively expresses the intent not to recover the damage claim equivalent to income;

There is no circumstance that can be seen as such.

⑤ Also, in a related lawsuit by BB, prior to the fact that the instant income is processing costs.

Confession made to the effect that it is losses included in the original deductible expenses, not the processed expenses after confession.

and the amount equivalent to the income of this case as a result of the tax investigation shall return to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was not prosecuted due to embezzlement, etc. although he was investigated as belonging to the court, and the plaintiff was not prosecuted.

The income of this case is the actual construction cost upon request by the Tax Tribunal for a disposition.

In the criminal case against D, etc., it is difficult to conclude that D, etc.’s income in this case was finally reverted to the Plaintiff even if considering the fact that D, etc. appears to have stated to the effect that it would have received a refund of KRW 1.5 billion, instead of paying the additional construction cost of KRW 1.68 billion as the additional construction cost in order to receive a request for the payment of KRW 1.68 billion from the “CC Integrated Construction”, it would not be concluded that the instant income in this case was finally reverted to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

(c)