Hishing Loan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yang Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of the District Tax Office (Attorney Park Byung-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 12, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap5147 decided May 22, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 1,309,485,650 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 2005, corporate tax of 1,260,445,430 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 2006, corporate tax of 985,336,200 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 2007, corporate tax of 1,017,482,210 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 2008, and corporate tax of 1,017,482,210 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 209, corporate tax of 970,627,440 (including additional tax) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and therefore, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 3rd page 15 " June 30, 2006" shall be read as " June 30, 2010".

The lower part of the 6th part of the 003th part of the 3th part of the 3th part of the 6th part of the 3th part of the 3th part of the 4th part of the Act on the Status of Officers and Employees' Remuneration, "O. 1, 2006" shall be read as "O. 21, 2003", "O. 22, 2006" as "O. 21, 2003" as "O. 21, 2003", and "O. 31, 2003." as "O. 21, 2003" as "O. 21, 2003."

○ The following shall be added to “not to be included in deductible expenses” in the first sentence of paragraph 16:

[Judgment of the court below] In case where the amount of bonus among the salary in this case constitutes bonus and it can be acknowledged that it constitutes bonus paid by the disposal of profits, there is room to interpret that it may not be included in the calculation of losses by applying Article 43 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, as seen below (b), there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of bonus in this case includes the amount of bonus in the calculation of losses and that amount is the amount. Thus, part of the salary in this case cannot be included in the calculation of losses

○ 16th page 13, however, the defendant's portion " shall not be included in deductible expenses" in the 15th page 16th to the following.

【The statement in Eul evidence No. 2 alone is insufficient to recognize that the bonus included or included in the instant salary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it [the defendant] [the amount exceeding 41.5 million won per month that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1 for a temporary period after April 2009, or ② the amount exceeding the amount calculated by applying the average wage rate of the plaintiff's employees to the non-party 1 until December 2004, or ③ the amount exceeding the amount calculated by applying the average wage rate of the plaintiff's employees to the non-party 30 million won per month that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1 until December 2004, or ③ the amount different from the date of payment in Eul evidence No. 3 (the details of payment of non-party 1 benefits) which the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1 without any grounds, which cannot be recognized as a bonus included in the instant salary]. Accordingly, it cannot be applied to non-deductible expenses in accordance with Article 43(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

○ The last 16th "2010 business year" shall be deemed to be "209 business year".

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) and Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu