208Gohap887 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

A

Ethios, Ethical decoration

Attorney B, C.

Law Firm (UP) D

Attorney E

Law Firm F

Attorney G

Law Firm H

Attorney 1

August 18, 2009

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

On April 25, 2003, the Defendant was the president (three years of office) of the JJ (K, hereinafter referred to as the “K”) and was in office until August 11, 2008 and was in general in charge of all management, including personnel affairs, funds, and accounting affairs of the Corporation.

The Corporation, as a non-profit corporation established by the Broadcasting Act (former JJ Act), has reported and paid corporate tax and value-added tax on revenues from receiving fees for reporting fees in return for broadcasting services, as well as advertising fees.

However, in relation to the legal nature of receiving fees from around 1992, the Corporation started a legal review to improve the previous tax practices of receiving fees from the standpoint that it is not subject to taxation because it is quasi-tax for broadcasting services, not subject to taxation. In the inspection of state administration in 193 and 1994, it was pointed out that "the illegality of the payment of receiving fees from some members of the National Assembly was pointed out." On November 1, 1997, L lawyers were appointed as legal representatives, and the receiving fees against the State and Seoul Special Metropolitan City are quasi-tax not for broadcasting services, and thus the tax payment is legally null and void, so it does not constitute a claim for return of unjust enrichment from 1989 to 194, which is the amount of receiving fees paid by the Corporation to the Seoul District Court.

In the first and second instances of a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment, although the public corporation was sentenced to a judgment against the losing party, it was confirmed that "receiving fees are special charges not for broadcasting services, and the payment of taxes on receiving fees is illegal." In the course of the trial, the public corporation decided to make a claim for reduction and correction against the corporate tax and value-added tax paid by including receiving fees in the tax base among the taxes already paid.

Accordingly, on September 199, the Corporation appointed L lawyers as legal representatives from around 1999, and requested reduction of corporate tax and value-added tax paid from 1993 to that time by the competent tax office against the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office, which is the competent tax office. On the other hand, the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office filed an administrative appeal against the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office to revoke the disposition of refusal against reduction request.

Meanwhile, during the period from February 8, 2001 to June 19, 200 of the same year, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation for the business year of 1995 to 2000 of the Corporation. Based on the cost report internally prepared by the Corporation, it classify the operation of 2TV and 2 radio channels, excluding 2TV and 2 radio, as a profit-making business, as an advertising business, and then classify the operation of the remaining channels, excluding 2TV and 2 radio, as a non-profit business, as a broadcasting business. After evaluating only the costs incurred in operating 2TV and 2 radio, the tax base for corporate tax was newly determined by the method of newly calculating the corporate tax base for the advertisement business, from September 8, 200 to March 19, 204, the Seoul Regional Tax Office imposed the corporate tax of 4.5 billion won (the corporate tax of 159 billion won for the business year of September 196, 2001, the corporate tax of 39.

The Corporation paid corporate tax amounting to KRW 45.9 billion on the disposition of imposing corporate tax under the name of the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office in accordance with the tax investigation of the Seoul District Tax Office. On the other hand, the Corporation filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposing corporate tax between November 2001 and May 2004 on the ground that it was unlawful to calculate corporate tax base based on the cost report, because the cost report against the Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office is not a separate accounting book.

As a result, the Corporation filed a lawsuit against the director of the Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office on the reduction of total of 17 corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “tax lawsuit”) and the Seoul Administrative Court against the director of the Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office from September 25, 199 to May 2004. The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment on 16 cases out of the tax lawsuit between April 25, 2002 and August 30, 2005, and the specific details are as shown in attached Table 1 [the details of the tax lawsuit].

공사는 조세소송의 1심에서 법인세 1,348억 원(법인세 소송가액의 81.54%), 부가가치세 416억 원(부가가치세 소송가액의 61.35%) 등 총 1,764억 원에 관하여 승소판결을 선고받았고, 승소판결 이유는 과세관청이 정당한 과세표준과 세액에 대한 입증책임을 부담하고 있음에도 법인세의 경우 수익사업인 광고업에 관련한 손금을, 부가가치세의 경우 과세사업인 광고업에 관련한 매입세액을 합리적인 과세자료로 특정하지 못하였기 떄문에 공사가 자진 신고 납부한 세액과 과세관청이 세무조사를 통해 공사로부터 추징한 세액이 정당하게 산출되었다고 볼 수 없다는 것이었다.

The public corporation did not keep separate accounting of non-profit business and profit-making business due to the relationship in which the initial receiving fee was considered as the price for the broadcast service and the business was conducted. Therefore, the tax authority could not clearly specify the above deductible expenses and input tax amount in the higher court, and the possibility of re-determination of the tax amount by estimation investigation method is rare due to the characteristics of the public corporation, and the higher court also held that at least 176.4 billion won in the winning amount in the first instance trial could be refunded from the National Tax Service.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the president of the Corporation, shall faithfully perform the tax litigation in which the winning is clearly determined for the benefit of the Corporation, as above, and even in the case of concluding the tax litigation through coordination with the National Tax Service, a thorough examination of the possibility of winning the tax litigation of the Corporation, the possibility of re-taxation due to the estimated investigation, the rationality and validity of the proposal of mediation, etc., while requesting and coordinating the above matters to a specialized law firm, the tax accounting firm, etc. to review and coordinate it, if so, what proposal of mediation is most favorable and reasonable for the Corporation, was the occupational duty to preserve the profits of the Corporation by selecting the most favorable and reasonable proposal for the Corporation.

However, the defendant was expected to have a serious financial person in the business year 2004 and there is a high risk that he will be held responsible for the insolvency of management, and the defendant started to seek ways to refund only a part of the amount of the lawsuit and withdraw the lawsuit through the coordination with the National Tax Service without conducting objective and reasonable legal review.

In other words, the Defendant contact with the 1st Director of the legal affairs division of the Seoul Regional Tax Office through M, the head of the tax planning project team of the Corporation, for the purpose of resolving the financial difficulties of the Corporation from June 2004, and attempted to receive the corporate tax base claimed by the National Tax Service from 1993 to 2003, "9.4 billion won from the corporate tax paid voluntarily by the National Tax Service and 45.9 billion won from the corporate tax collected in accordance with the tax investigation of 2001 (excluding the refund period)" and to terminate the tax litigation, but the Seoul Regional Tax Office failed to achieve its purport on the ground that it was not possible for the Seoul Regional Tax Office to refund taxes more than the corporate tax collected in 45.9 billion won.

In the meantime, after the occurrence of the deficit of KRW 63.7 billion, which is the largest size in the history of the construction in the 2004 fiscal year, the elderly, and the defendant judged it as a serious business crisis and announced a management innovation proposal that includes the restructuring of wage reduction and high strength for the purpose of resolving the financial deficit on June 1, 2005. For this reason, the construction labor union started to conduct a management progress campaign demanding the retirement of the management from June 7, 2005 to the employees, including the defendant, for the reason that the management crisis occurred due to the non-performance of the management, including the defendant, was transferred to the employees and the responsibility of the management was not mentioned.

At the same time, the Defendant was in violation of the above occupational duties of the president of the Corporation, even though there is no reasonable reason to withdraw the lawsuit, the Defendant was forced to receive at least the amount of winning in the court of first instance when the Corporation continues the lawsuit due to high possibility of winning in the higher court, and thus, it could not clearly specify the standards for imposing corporate tax and value-added tax due to the characteristics of the corporation, and thus, the future taxation standards have no choice but to be determined through the amendment of the tax law or the consultation with the National Tax Service. Therefore, the Defendant was willing to receive the request for negotiations by the National Tax Service, receive all the request for corporate tax collection from the National Tax Service, receive only 45.9 billion won, and convert the 2005 fiscal year into black, thereby success in the reappointment on April 2006, which is the point of termination of the term.

Accordingly, on June 23, 2005, the defendant, the head of the tax planning project team of the Corporation, requested L attorney-at-law who is the legal representative, to submit a proposal to the court to the effect that he will complete the tax litigation after receiving only the additional amount of corporate tax collected by the National Tax Service, as required by the National Tax Service. However, L attorney-at-law's refusal of the above request for mediation on the grounds that L attorney-at-law's success in the construction of the tax litigation is certain and it is impossible to re-assessment the tax due to the estimation due to the estimation. On July 18, 2005, the defendant appointed the in-house P, the in-house attorney-at-law as the legal representative, as the tax litigation agent, and applied for the designation of the date for mediation in the Seoul High Court on July 18, 2005

Meanwhile, from July 19, 2005, the Corporation's labor union imposed a non-Confidence voting on the defendant from July 19, 2005 to enforce the responsibility for the insolvency of management, and the non-Confidence proposal was anticipated to be resolved with the pressure support of the union members. The defendant, who caused the crisis, was the chairperson of the Corporation's labor union, around 18:00 on July 22, 2005, prior to the commencement of the ballot counting, signed a written agreement stating that "The management of Q and Q and ‘the chairperson of the Corporation', who was the chairperson of the Corporation's labor union, shall be the employee for the occurrence of the old and the preceding business crisis, and shall be the general manager at 4/4th quarter of the next year when the deficit occurred."

Then, on August 24, 2005, the Defendant submitted to the Seoul High Court a proposal to refund only 45.9 billion won of corporate tax collection and withdraw tax litigation.

The Seoul High Court, reflecting almost all the proposals submitted by the Corporation, sent the recommendations for corporate tax adjustment on October 13, 2005, and the recommendations for value-added tax adjustment on November 3, 2005, respectively, to both parties. In the process, the Supreme Court decided the recommendations for final mediation by reflecting the results of the consultation between both parties without involvement in the mediation proposal process.

Since then on November 16, 2005, the Corporation notified the above court of the acceptance of the mediation recommendation proposal on December 30 of the same year.

On January 5, 2006 and on January 24, 2006, the Corporation withdrawn the tax litigation from the Seoul High Court on the 24th of the same month, after receiving only the additional corporate tax of KRW 55.6 billion (including the additional corporate tax of KRW 45.9 billion), including the interest to be refunded from the Youngbu Tax Office.

As a result, the Defendant renounced the amount of KRW 244.8 billion (the winning amount of the first instance trial + the amount of KRW 176.4 billion + the amount of KRW 68.4 billion), which can be refunded through tax litigation, without reasonable grounds, thereby having the State gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the actual amount of KRW 189.2 billion (the amount of KRW 24.8 billion - 55.6 billion) which is the difference in the actual amount of the refund, and had the Corporation inflict economic loss equivalent to the said amount.

2. The gist of the defendant and his defense counsel

The major point of legal proceedings asserted by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows.

① Not only did the winning of the construction in the higher court of the instant tax lawsuit, but also even if the construction works were to be won in the higher court, the first instance court’s judgment in the instant tax lawsuit determined a certain standard and imposed taxes again, and the said judgment was almost unreasonable that the substance of the said judgment is maintained in the higher court. Accordingly, according to the above first instance judgment, it would be difficult to say that the disposition for re-taxation by the National Tax Service and the filing of the lawsuit for construction works would be repeated after the completion of the tax lawsuit. Therefore, it was unlikely that the construction works could be refunded even after the completion of the tax lawsuit at the time of discussion of the countermeasures against the tax lawsuit.

② On the ground that there was a high risk of the Defendant’s insolvency liability, without objective and reasonable legal review, sought a method of withdrawing a lawsuit to refund a part of the amount of the lawsuit through adjustment with the National Tax Service without any objective and reasonable legal review, or had the Defendant conclude a tax lawsuit as a conciliation for personal purposes, such as getting off his/her right from pressure to set aside his/her union due to his/her financial person, and having him/her end his/her term of office on April 2006.

③ Even if the Defendant’s withdrawal of a family suit violates his/her occupational duty, the Corporation’s loss is much less than the amount of corporate tax collected from the tax authority for the business year 1999, on the ground that the amount of corporate tax collected for the business year 1999 was refunded, in addition to the amount of refund of KRW 45.9 billion (excluding refund interest) by the tax authority.

3. Facts of recognition;

피고인 및 증인 R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, Q의 각 법정진술, 제2 내지 6회 각 공판조서 중 증인 AC, O, L, M, AD, N, AE, AF의 각 진술기재, 검사가 제출한 AC, L, AG(대질부분 포함), 0(일부 조서 대질부분 포함), AH, R(대질부분 포함), U, Q, S, AI, AJ, W, N(대질부분 포함), M(대질부분 포함), AK, AA, T, P, AL, AM에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서의 진술기재, 수사보고(추징환급금 관련 방송공사 전표 등), 수사보고(추징환급금 관련 방송공사 전표 확인 2보), 피고인 작성의 경영혁신안 발표문과 파워포인트 자료, 피고인, Q 작성의 합의서, AN 작성의 의견서, AK 작성의 세무조정건 법률자문 결과보고, 세무조정건 법률자문 결과, AC, L, U, AO 작성의 각 진술서, AP, V, AQ 작성의 각 진술서 사본, AR, AS, 0 작성의 확인서(법인세 등 관련 소송의 조정을 통한 해결에 관한 사항), AC 작성의 고발장, K 세금 소송 총괄내역, 총괄내역표, J공사와 영등포세무서 간의 세금소송에 대한 민원 제기건, AP 작성의 진술서 사본, P 작성의 각 의견서, AJ 작성의 진술서, 서울고등법원의 조정권고안에 관한 검토의견, AQ 작성의 진술서 사본, 법무법인 AT(L 변호사) 작성의 법인세 등 세금소송에 관한 귀사 협의안의 실익 유무에 대한 검토의견 회신, 공사 세무소송 법원조정신청 요청에 대한 회신, 공사 세무소송 법원조정신청 이행촉구에 대한 의견, 귀 공사의 세무소송 처리 방안에 대한 의견, 검토의견서, 법무법인 AU(AV 변호사) 작성의 법률자문 요청에 대한 회신, 법무법인 AW(AP 변호사) 작성의 J공사의 법인세 등 취소소송 관련 질의에 대한 의견, 법무법인 AX(AQ 변호사) 작성의 법인세부과처분취소소송 등의 조정 관련 검토, 법무법인 AY, AO 변호사 작성의 법률의견서, 공사 작성의 과세관청협의안 요약, 공사세무소송 법원조정신청 요청, 공사 세무소송 법원조정신청 이행촉구, 세무소송 관련 연봉계약직 재고용 방안 보고, 세무소송팀 확대 개편, 위임계약해지통보 및 소송자료 회수 요청, 공사 세무소송 법원조정에 따른 법인세 질의, 법인세 구분경리 기준에 대한 질의서, 법원조정 관련 후속조치이행 사전통보, 공사 세무소송현황, 청구취지 감축사유, 각 소 취하서, 공사 보도자료, 각 정책조정회의 결과 통보, 법인세 및 부가가치세 소송 관련 제2, 3, 4차 T/F 회의개최 통보, 세무소송 관련 제2, 3, 4차 T/F 회의결과 보고, 세무 관련 업무추진현황 보고, 세무업무 관련 추진계획 보고, 세무소송 업무 관련 현안 검토, 공사 세무행정에 관한 국세청 질의, 이사회 요구자료 답변서 송부, 세무소송 관련 추진현황 보고, 공사 세무소송 관련 자문의뢰, 세무 현안 문제점과 해결방안, 공사세무소송 관련 법원조정신청 요청, 공사 세무소송 관련 법원조정신청 이행촉구, 공사세무소송 관련 공동대리인 선임, 세무 현안 진행경과 및 대책 보고, 공동대리인 추가 선임, 공사 세무소송대리인 해임, 공사 세무소송대리인 해임통보, 법인세 관련 세무소송결과 보고 및 소송종결 처리, 이사회 보고자료 제출, 세무소송 조정 경과 보고, 제509차 임시이사회 개최결과 통보, 세무소송 관련 외부 법무법인 자문, 세무조정 관련 법률검토의견 보고, 세무소송 조정권고 수용 여부 결정, 제710차 경영회의 결과 통보, 세무소송 조정권고 수용 여부 결정(안), 법인세 산출기준 질의, 조정권고 수락 통보, 공사 세무소송 법원 조정에 따른 법인세 질의, 세무소송 관련 진행현황 및 추진대책, 각 이사회 의사록, 법률자문 의뢰, 각 경영회의 의사록, 답변서(법인세 등 관련 소송의 조정을 통한 해결에 관한 사항), 이사회 간담회 개최 결과, 제508차 정기이사회 개최 결과, AZ(V 세무사) 작성의 공사의 협의 안에 대한 검토의견, BA회계법인(BB 회계사), BC회계법인 작성의 각 감정보고서, 서울고등법원 작성의 각 분쟁의 신속한 해결을 위한 조정권고, 서울지방국세청 작성의 K 관련 조정권고안 검토조서, 법원 조정권고안 검토조사서, 법인세 구분경리 기준에 대한 회신, 법원 조정권고에 따른 법인세 질의서 전달, 각 조정권고안 수용 여부 지휘 요청, 서울고등검찰청 작성의 각 조정권고안에 대한 수용지휘, 각 조정권고안 수용 여부 승인지휘 의견서, 영등포세무서장 작성의 국세환급금 충당통지서 9부, 각 법인세 과세표준 및 세액신고서, 각 부가가치세 요약신고서, 각 부가가치세 신고서, 법인세 납부내역, 부가가치세 납부내역, 각 법원 판결문, 각 사건진행 내역서, 헌법재판소 결정문, 각 변론조서, 준비서면, 각 K 노보, 각 코비스 게시문, K 사보, 각 K 노보, 노컷뉴스(K문제에 대한 A 사장 담화문 전문), 감사직무규정, 각 노보특보의 각 기재, 그리고 변호인들이 제출한 각 K노보, 각 K노보특보, 법인세 등의 진행소송에 대한 추가 조치 계획 보고, 법인세 등 부당이득금반환 항소심 판결 결과 및 조치계획 보고, 대법원 판결 검토의견서, 법인세 등 부당이득금 판결 결과 보고 및 조치계획시행, 사안별 회의 결과 통보, 사안별 회의록, 법인세 등 환급소송 진행 현황 및 향후 조치계획보고, 법인세 등 세무소송 조정관련 Q&A;, 이면합의서, K사보, 제33기 2005회계연도 결산 개요, 2005년도 경영상황, 노사관계 주요일지, 세무조정 관련 검토의견 제출, 세무업무 관련 추진계획보고의 각 기재에 의하면 다음과 같은 사실들이 인정된다.

(a) Status of the defendant;

On April 25, 2003, the Defendant was appointed to the president of the Corporation and completed the remaining term of office of the former president, and started the term of office again after undergoing the procedures for the proposal of the board of directors of the Corporation and the appointment of the president around June 2003. On June 2006, the Defendant was a person who took overall charge of management affairs, such as personnel affairs, funds, and accounting affairs of the Corporation during his term of office, and was dismissed on August 11, 2008, and was appointed again after the end of his term of office on November 2006 due to the issue of the appointment of the directors of the Korea Broadcasting Commission and the organization of the recommendation committee of the president.

B. The nature of the construction

Under the Broadcasting Act (former JJ Act), the Corporation is a non-profit corporation established by the Government with full capital invested in order to establish a fair and sound broadcasting culture and to efficiently implement domestic and foreign broadcasts (Article 43 of the Broadcasting Act). The principal revenue sources of the Corporation are revenues from advertising fees and receiving fees collected from viewers, which are operated by the Corporation as basic revenue from receiving fees imposed on certain groups possessing TV sets in order to appropriate for financing the costs of public services called public broadcasting business.

(c) Payment of corporate tax, value added tax;

(1) Corporate tax - Value-Added Tax-Related Acts

Major provisions of statutes related to corporate tax and value-added tax shall be as specified in attached Form 2 (Acts related to corporate tax and value-added tax).

(b) Broadcasting and advertising business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification;

The Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table related to the broadcasting business and advertising business shall be as shown in attached Table 3 (Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table).

(3) Status of tax payment, including corporate tax and value-added tax, of the Corporation

(A) Corporate tax, etc.

Until the time of calculating the corporate tax for the business year 2004, the Corporation has reported and paid corporate tax, etc. by including the revenue of receiving fees, revenue of advertising fees, revenue of radio wave fees, revenue of classical music groups, etc. in the calculation of the corporate tax (including special surtax and special tax for rural development, hereinafter the same shall apply) in the gross income, which is the basis of calculating the corporate tax base. Accordingly, the details of corporate tax assessment for the business year from the business year 1995 to the business year 2002 paid by the Corporation are as shown in attached Form 4 [the details of report of corporate tax between the corporation 19

(b) Value-added tax;

1) Value-added tax by the year 2000

The Corporation did not account the revenue and expenditure of the advertising broadcast separately from the revenue and expenditure of the general broadcasting. However, the Corporation calculated the ratio of the revenue from the advertising fees to the total revenue amount of the corporation pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and calculated the amount equivalent to the ratio of the total revenue from the corporation as the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount (excluding the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount to be deducted) and deducted the amount from the output tax amount (excluding the revenue amount from the output tax amount to be deducted) for the general broadcasting, which is exempted from the value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1)7 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6905 of May 29, 200) and Article 32(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 200).

Accordingly, the details of the payment of value-added tax by the corporation from the first to the second period in 1993 are as shown in the attached Table 5 [the details of the return of value-added tax from the first to the second period in 2000 of the corporation].

(ii) value-added tax after 2001;

However, as a result of the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 17041) on February 25, 2000 and Article 32 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 17041) on Dec. 29, 2000, the Corporation, as a result of the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, has become entitled to the full exemption of input tax amount as a result of the Corporation's entry into taxable business only. The Corporation, as an advising attorney of the Corporation (Dong attorney from March 3, 1985, as a legal consultant of the Corporation, had been employed as a legal consultant of the Corporation, while dealing with the affairs of BE, who is an adviser of the Corporation, while working as a legal consultant of the Corporation, was asked about the affairs of receiving tax and taxes, after which legal advice and litigation belongs to AT and conducted under its external name, the Corporation shall report the full amount of input tax amount under 201 years after the reporting.

(c) Other

The Corporation has paid the value-added tax and other income tax on the "ced goods" that were received free of charge from the existing cams and paid to viewers, etc., but the name "cams and items" was changed to the name of "cams and items" when revising the regulations on the supplementary business of the Corporation and the management standards for delivery goods, and did not pay the value-added tax and other income tax after October 1, 1993. On the request of the Corporation for legal review, L lawyer submitted a legal review opinion to the Corporation to the effect that L's opinion on the amendment of the regulations on the supplementary business as well as the management standards for delivery goods, clearly prescribes the definition of terms and the nature of the guide goods rather than before the amendment, so there is no problem related to the announcement of sponsors.

On the other hand, the tax authority sent a notice to the public corporation on June 9, 1994 to pay the value-added tax on the supporting goods from October 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. However, the public corporation rejected it based on the L lawyer's legal review opinion.

(d) The progress of the lawsuit claiming the Corporation's unlawful gains;

In relation to the legal nature of receiving fees from around 1992, the Corporation started legal review work to improve the previous tax payment practices that had been paid corporate tax, etc. for receiving fees from the standpoint of "the receiving fees are not taxes imposed as quasi-tax not for broadcasting services." The Corporation filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment to the effect that in the inspection of state administration in 193 and 1994, when certain members of the National Assembly pointed out the illegality of payment of receiving fees from certain members of the National Assembly, the Corporation appointed L lawyer as a legal representative on November 5, 1994, and that the extinctive prescription period against the Seoul District Court was not completed (hereinafter "the lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment") to return the amount of value-added tax between July 25, 1989 to April 25, 199 and the amount equivalent to KRW 31.48 billion, such as corporate tax, etc. between July 30, 1990 to June 28, 1994.

In this regard, the Supreme Court, which was the final appeal of the above unjust enrichment lawsuit, recognized that "receiving fees are special charges imposed on a specific group possessing TV set in order to cover expenses for a specific public project, not for services," but for the reasons as stated in the attached Table 6(s). However, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for construction as the plaintiff's agent for reasons as stated in the attached Table 6(s).

On the other hand, the Constitutional Court made a decision on May 27, 199 to the effect that "the nature of the receiving fee of the Corporation is not the price for the service or the beneficiary charge, but the special charge, not the tax," as the above Supreme Court's decision was rendered on May 27, 199."

(e) ‘disposition of refusal against reduction or correction claims by tax authorities' and ‘re-assessment by decision of correction';

(1) Requests for reduction or correction of construction works and refusal disposition by tax authorities

The Corporation has ruled against the judgment of the first instance court of a lawsuit of unjust enrichment, which appointed L lawyer, but in the process of that trial, it confirmed the reason for the judgment that "receiving fees are special charges not for broadcasting services but for the payment of taxes based on receiving fees is illegal." In order to refund the corporate tax and value-added tax paid on the premise that receiving fees are taxable income or taxable transactions, the Corporation has already filed a lawsuit without accepting the claim.

(A) Corporate tax;

The Corporation requested the tax authority to rectify the amount of the corporate tax from March 31, 1998 to May 13, 2003, which was newly calculated as shown in the [Attachment 7] list of requests for correction of the amount of the corporate tax from the income subject to corporate tax, and the tax authority rejected all of the requests for correction of the amount of the amount of the corporate tax from March 31, 1998 to the 1001.

(b) Value-added tax;

In addition, since the Corporation operates only a taxable business which is a taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 61 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which applies to the Corporation where it concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, cannot be applied to the Corporation, and therefore, under the aforementioned provision, the corporation claims for the tax amount newly calculated from January 26, 1998 to January 2, 2002 as stated in the attached Table 8 (the details of the request for the reduction of value-added tax for the reduction of value-added tax) for the value-added tax from January 26, 1998 to January 2, 2002, the tax authorities also rejected each request for the reduction of value-added tax.

(2) Determination of increase ex officio by tax authorities

From February 8, 2001 to June 19, 2001, the tax authorities conducted a tax investigation with respect to the tax accrued between February 8, 2001 and June 19, 2001, and subsequently issued a disposition of rectification, such as increase, as follows:

(A) Corporate tax;

1) Corporate tax for the business year 196

Based on the cost report written by the public corporation, the tax authority excluded the revenues from receiving fees for the public corporation from the profits, and classified the operation of 2TV and 2 radio among the 16 channels operated by the public corporation as a profit-making business, and classified the operation of the remaining channels other than 2TV and 2 radio as a nonprofit business, and then determined the tax amount by a method of newly assessing the tax base of corporate tax for the losses related to the advertisement business, and then revising the corporate tax for the business year 1996 to increase the amount of corporate tax to 16,425,842,070 won.

However, the above cost report is prepared as reference for internal business management by the Corporation. The Corporation does not separate the assets, liabilities, and profits and losses for each profit-making business and each non-profit business run by the Corporation, but only analyzes the cost of production and expenditure for each program sent by the plaintiff. Unlike the taxation data based on general separate accounting that state all the operating costs and non-business costs, only the operating costs, such as broadcasting business costs and sales and management costs, are excluded from the analysis, and since the cost report alone was not enough to confirm whether the loss for the pertinent business year and the amount of loss.

2) Corporate tax after the business year 1997

The tax authority did not classify the amount of the corporation's income as belonging to the profit-making business and the non-profit business as originally reported by the Corporation, and included the amount of receiving fees in the gross income, and adjusted the amount of corporate tax for the business year 1997 according to the non-deductible of each item or the calculation of wrongful act and calculation 939,290,880 won, and adjusted the corporate tax for the business year 1998 to 9,582,414,780 won, and adjusted the corporate tax for the business year 1998 to 5,187,813,430 won, and the corporate tax for the business year 1999 to 2,02,257,670 won, respectively.

(b) Value-added tax;

On September 1, 2001, according to the results of tax investigation, the tax authority increased the value-added tax for the first year of 1997 to 53,376,960 won, the second year value-added tax for the second year of 1997 to 63,146,410 won, the first year value-added tax for the second year of 1998 to 124,608,800 won, the first year value-added tax for the second year of 1999 to 224,503,150 won, the second year value-added tax for the second year of 1999 to 254,141,430 won, the first year value-added tax for the second year of 200 to 235,81,240 won, the second year of 200 to 235,81,240 won, and the second year value-added tax for the second year of 200 to 25017,50.

(c)other income tax;

After the above tax investigation, the tax authorities imposed on September 1, 2001 the tax amount of KRW 165,048,570 for other income tax in 1996, KRW 314,661,770 for other income tax in 197, KRW 625,245,940 for other income tax in 198, and KRW 822,504,440 for other income tax in 199, and KRW 98,630 for other income tax in 200 for other income tax in 199.

(3) Determination of reduction or correction ex officio by a tax authority

On November 29, 2001, the Corporation filed a request for review against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for determination of increase in corporate tax for each business year of 1996, 197, 1998, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for determination of partial acceptance of the request for review of corporate tax on September 10, 2002, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office corrected corporate tax of 16,261,962,218 won, corporate tax of 1996 as KRW 635,987,518 won, corporate tax of 1997 as KRW 6,916,195 won, respectively.

(4) The tax authority's disposition to rectify the increased corporate tax

With respect to the corporate tax for the business year 1997 and the business year 1998 as of September 1, 2001, the tax authorities: (a) exclude the income from receiving fees of the Corporation from the gross income; (b) divide the income amount of the Corporation for each business year of 1997 and each business year of 1998 and the income amount of a nonprofit business; and (c) calculated a new tax base and tax amount; (d) subsequently, the corporate tax for the business year 1997 into 23,289,421,00, the corporate tax for the same business year of 1997 into 6,729,735,80, and the corporate tax for the business year 1998 by the same method of March 16, 2004; and (e) re-revision the corporate tax for the same business year of 1999 to 33,32,000,000,0000 each in the same method.

(f) Tax litigation;

(1) The institution and progress of the corporation;

With respect to the request for the reduction and correction of the corporation and the disposition of refusal and re-assessment by the tax authorities, L attorneys emphasized the necessity of filing administrative litigation for the refund of corporate tax and value-added tax when submitting written opinions to the Corporation to each of the following purport:

- A written opinion of the court of appeal of unjust enrichment lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 97Na43552 delivered on August 21, 1998), which was prepared on or around August 199 after the judgment of the court of appeal of unjust enrichment lawsuit (Seoul High Court 97Na4352 delivered on August 21, 199): If the Corporation only files the case as an administrative litigation within the statutory period, it is judged that the possibility of winning the case is almost conclusive in light of the judgment of the High Court (referring to the judgment of the Seoul High Court 97Na4352 delivered on August 21, 1998) and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea on the related case, etc.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling, "A written opinion of review by the Supreme Court", which was submitted on March 25, 2000 after the judgment of the court of final appeal on the lawsuit of unjust enrichment (Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 delivered on February 25, 200) was rendered: according to the Supreme Court's ruling, the input tax amount corresponding to the receiving fee which was undeductiblely calculated and deducted was recognized as the cost for the advertisement broadcast, and was fully deducted. 11) In the case of value-added tax, the Supreme Court's ruling, which was previously sentenced to corporate tax, excluded the pro rata application of the amount of the advertisement broadcast of the construction including scam and camping, which was jointly disbursed, and thus, some of the costs exceed the amount of the tax to be paid, and thus, the defendant has no value-added tax and corporate tax to be paid future.

- The statement of opinion that "the method of refunding the amount of erroneous tax payment" submitted on June 200: corporate tax for the business year 1996 and the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of February 1996 and the year of January 1, 1997, and the National Tax Service or the National Tax Tribunal have the effect of the above Supreme Court's decision, and the possibility of refund is almost certain for the construction." The Corporation filed 17 lawsuits against the Seoul Administrative Court from September 2009 to May 2004 against the tax authority for each disposition, including the tax authority's request for correction of corporate tax, value-added tax, etc., and the decision to revise ex officio. The Seoul Administrative Court sentenced 16 of the case to August 30, 205 / [the details of the case] as stated in the separate decision of the first instance court / [the case].

(2) Summary of the construction claim in a tax lawsuit

The summary of the claims asserted by L attorneys-at-law in a tax lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the tax authority (the Defendant) is as follows.

- The receiving fee collected by the Plaintiff is not a price for the provision of broadcasting services, but a public charge, and thus it is unreasonable to regard it as a corporate subject of corporate tax. In addition, since the Plaintiff runs the broadcasting business with the revenue of advertising broadcasting not as a separate business, but as it runs the broadcasting business with the revenue of advertising broadcasting received in return for advertising broadcasting, there is no room for fundamental profit generation if the Plaintiff excluded the receiving fee. Therefore, the corporate tax amount that the Plaintiff returned and paid should be refunded in full.

- The defendant asserts that the portion of the receiving fee should be excluded from the deductible expenses, but since the receiving fee is not the cost of providing broadcasting services, but the special charge imposed to cover the cost of a specific public service called public broadcasting, there is no concept of the corresponding cost. Therefore, the defendant's argument that the corresponding cost of receiving fee should be excluded from the deductible expenses is without merit.

- Even if the costs of household and broadcasting service should be excluded from the loss, the full disposition must be cancelled unless the defendant proves that the amount is not the amount.

- The Plaintiff’s receiving fees as revenue is not the price for broadcasting, but the special charge imposed to cover for the financing of expenses for the public service. In addition, under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff runs only the advertising broadcasting business, which is the business subject to value-added tax, and in fact runs an advertisement in all other broadcasts (in particular, television and 1 radio broadcasts which do not run program commercials) except the educational television broadcasts and the educationalFM radio broadcasts, or does not intend to run an advertisement at any time, and the Plaintiff runs the advertising broadcasting business in all broadcasts except the educational broadcasts, and does not broadcast any other broadcast consisting solely of the receiving fees, so the input tax amount equivalent to the expenses paid by the Corporation should be fully deducted.

(3) Summary of tax authorities’ assertion in tax litigation

The substance of the tax suit filed by the Plaintiff against the tax authority (Defendant) is as follows.

- The Plaintiff’s broadcasting business is a type of profit-making business and receiving fees are acquired as consideration for broadcasting services provided to viewers while running a broadcasting business, which is a profit-making business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s receiving fees paid falls under “income accrued from profit-making business.” Even if the receiving fees collected by the Plaintiff for domestic affairs have the nature of public charges collected for the maintenance and operation of public broadcasting, they are determined from the perspective of viewers who bear receiving fees, and from the Plaintiff’s perspective, they are obviously acquired by the Plaintiff’s running a broadcasting business, which is

- If the Plaintiff’s broadcasting business, which is the main business, is not a profit-making business, the cost incurred in the broadcasting business that is a nonprofit business, i.e., the necessary cost corresponding to the revenue from receiving fees, should be excluded from the total loss incurred with respect to the Plaintiff in accordance with the principle of profit-making cost response, and it is improper to include it in the loss in the calculation of income from advertising business

- The burden of proof regarding the classification of the deductible expenses to be included and the deductible expenses to be excluded is borne by the plaintiff.

- The input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount related to value-added tax and the input tax amount to be deducted must be calculated pro rata to the ratio of the input tax amount.

(4) Summary of the reasons for each court of first instance

The summary of each judgment of the first instance court of a tax lawsuit shall be as shown in the attached Table 9 (Summary of the Reasons for each judgment of the first instance court of a tax lawsuit).

In the end, the main issues or main issues of the tax litigation of this case are ① Whether the legitimate tax amount can be calculated by dividing the advertising business which is a profit-making business and the deductible expenses of the broadcasting business which is a non-profit business in relation to the corporate tax. ③ Whether the input tax amount related to the advertising business, which is a taxable business and the tax-free broadcasting business, can be calculated by distinguishing the input tax amount related to the advertising business, which is a tax-free business, and ④ Whether the tax amount can be assessed by estimation. In each judgment of the first instance court, the court decided that the revenue as a non-profit corporation does not constitute a special charge, not a profit, but a tax transaction under the Corporate Tax Act, but a non-profit business, and it is difficult to specify the input tax amount related to the profit-making business and the non-profit business, and ultimately

On the other hand, during the tax litigation process, the Seoul Administrative Court requested the BA accounting corporation and the BC accounting corporation to appraise the deductible expenses to be deducted from the advertisement revenue, which is a profit-making business, in relation to the case No. 99Gu28704, which is the first instance court of the 3th instance in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Table 1"), and as a result, the Seoul Administrative Court judged that the business of the Corporation is not reasonable by classifying the number of channels, that is, i.e., TV, 2TV, 1 radio, standard FM, 2 radio, supplementary business, 1FM, 2FM, love sound, 1FM, militaryFM, social education, global broadcasting, satellite 1, satellite 2, education TV, and 16 channels for calculating the gross income and deductible expenses by channel, which are separate from the non-profit business, from the total deductible expenses of the Corporation, and that it is too too unreasonable that the Seoul Administrative Court's view and the amount of deductible expenses paid by the Corporation is the 17th 1.

(g) Details of the countermeasures against construction works and the progress of conciliation following the progress of tax litigation;

(1) Composition of the Corporation’s response team for tax litigations

① On March 3, 2003, when the tax litigation was in progress, the Corporation held a meeting on March 1997, 2003 and 23.3 billion won of corporate tax imposed by the tax authority, on behalf of the president who is holding a meeting for each case, and the head of BG media headquarters discussed this issue in 1999. At the above meeting, 4 years and more than 199, 2G media head of BG had discussed this issue, and 4 years and more than 199. At that time, the Corporation made a statement to the effect that the payment was defective first, and even at this time, finites were paid first by the National Tax Service, and that it had already been paid. At this time, the Corporation presented a statement to the effect that bG head of BG media head of BG was "I am?" (No. 8, No. 13).

② After the Defendant assumed office as the president of the Corporation on April 25, 2003, AC, a person in charge of tax litigation, reported to the Defendant the progress status of the lawsuit for refund, including corporate tax, in writing, on July 2003, which is "report on the progress status of the lawsuit for refund and the plan for future measures." The content of the administrative litigation case is based on the Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 Decided that "the possibility of winning and winning the lawsuit is only time problem, and it is presumed that the expected amount of refund, including the refund interest, will be much more than 30 billion won, and in this case, it is presumed that the expected amount of refund, including the refund interest, will be more than 30 billion won." This was based on the opinion on the above decision of Lat-Law.

③ On December 11, 2003, the Defendant organized a tax litigation operation team (hereinafter referred to as “tax litigation team”) within the Corporation’s Policy Planning Center with theO as the team leader for a limited period of one year, and AC as team members (hereinafter referred to as “tax litigation team”) in order to effectively perform the tax litigation affairs in which AC was mixed (the investigation record 2232 pages).

④ In light of the position that the tax authorities would notify the Corporation of approximately KRW 60.9 billion of corporate tax for the business year 1998 through 2000, the Defendant: (a) on February 26, 2004, prepared a tax litigation T/F team of the nature of the meeting (hereinafter “Tax T/F team”); (b) on February 27, 2004, the tax litigation T/F team held the first meeting while the Defendant did not attend the meeting; and (c) on February 27, 2004, the said meeting consulted on the following (i.e., the investigation record 2240 pages).

- Although the National Tax Service appears to give additional notice at the beginning of March, the Vice-President, the Director of the Policy Planning Center, and the Secretary of the National Tax Service, prior to the additional notice, can have an interview with the Secretary of the National Tax Service.

- In the event of a meeting of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the term “to request the postponement of imposing taxes until the trial is closed”

-Consultations with the National Tax Service to ensure that a lawsuit pending in the trial is promptly pending;

⑤ The tax authority imposed approximately KRW 6.7 billion on the Corporation on March 16, 2004 as corporate tax for the business year 1998, and the Corporation decided on March 22, 2004 that the vice president, six chief directors, five chief directors, etc. gather and held the policy coordination meeting on March 22, 2004, and "after paying the single corporate tax, legal countermeasures should be taken and the verification process should be conducted to hear the objective opinions of the third experts" (the investigation record 2245 pages).

6. AC retired from retirement age from the Corporation on March 31, 2004. At that time, MA’s head of the tax litigation team was changed to the position of its team members.

(2) Finding diversification of the methods of responding to the corporation's tax litigation

① On April 23, 2004, the tax litigation T/F team held the second meeting in the presence of 18 persons, including the Defendant, who is the president, etc., and the following matters were discussed at the above meeting (Investigation 2247, 2261).

· The current tax action of the Corporation is to be carried out by a system other than a specific department or an individual, as a matter of need to be copied;

- It is necessary to develop a reasonable logic that can be understood in the opposite party or in-house instead of unilaterally claiming the response logic of our side.

- The litigation practice team needs to review whether there is any problem in the logic of response that has been argued by our side so far, and to prepare the detailed contents of the future litigation response plan and present it to the T/F conference.

- To analyze and cope with the effects of the failure of action on the company;

- Even if winning in favor of the National Tax Service, the possibility of dispute with the National Tax Service remains, so it should be examined as to whether there is no part of the dispute.

② On April 30, 2004, the tax litigation T/F team held the third meeting in the presence of 16 persons including the Defendant, etc., and at the above meeting, the following matters were discussed:

- need to resolve pending issues in parallel with litigation in the tax litigation team.

-to prepare clear understandings and countermeasures against separate accounting, a major issue of corporate tax;

- need to fully explain the conflict between corporate tax and value-added tax;

·Review the possibility of determining the receiving fee as non-taxation (non-taxation) through the Enforcement Decree of the Ministry of Finance and Economy

On the other hand, at the meeting above, the defendant should not concentrate on the lawsuit, but hold sufficient negotiations for the prompt resolution of the case, and seek various approaches. The National Tax Service has proposed that both working-levels in relation to the pending issues be able to overcome the problem, and this problem should be promoted so that it can be settled down within the first year. Although our arguments are asserted that it is impossible to keep separate accounting, it is basically a view that it is not necessary to keep separate accounting for expenses according to the income ratio. However, the detailed response strategies, practical decisions, etc. should be promoted at the tax litigation team, and the head of the M&A has made a statement to the effect that "The head of the M&A will actively review whether there is any room for compromise with the National Tax Service in the existing litigation strategy (hereinafter, 264.15)."

③ On May 6, 2004, the Defendant expanded the tax planning project team within the construction project as the team leader, BR,O, AD accountant, and P lawyer as the team leader (hereinafter “tax planning team”). (In investigation records, 2275 pages).

④ On May 10, 2004, the tax litigationT/F team held the fourth meeting while 12 persons, including the vice president, etc., were present, and the following matters were discussed at the above meeting:

- review the resolution of pending issues of tax litigation through the amendment of the law and review, at the tax planning team, of possible legislation, etc.

- In addition to the litigation strategy, the proposals presented on our side for further /F meetings by developing possible negotiations and analyzing expected ripple effects on the construction;

At the above meeting, WH policy planning center head has a significant change in the current construction revenue structure (advertising fee) in consideration of the internal and external political and economic environment of the corporation after the direction. Even if such change has occurred considerably, it should be considered whether the cases asserted by us under the Corporate Tax Act or the Value-Added Tax Act can still be considered as favorable to us. The tax planning team head should develop our alternative regarding negotiations and analyze closely the impact on the corporation." The best solution to the pending issues is to decide whether the court can clearly keep separate accounting. In reality, it is clear that this ruling would reduce the number of the National Tax Service or the Corporation, and thus, it is possible to set up a clear answer. Even if the National Tax Service determines the favorable amount of tax in favor of the Corporation, it is possible to set up the existing separate accounting report between 7th National Tax Service and the Korea National Tax Service, which will be able to take advantage of the logic that it would be possible to collect the tax amount in response to the current M&B system.

(3) Coordination consultation between the corporation and the tax authorities

① Around May 204, the head of the M tax Planning Team presented the intent of the Corporation’s BH policy planning center head and the Seoul regional tax office’s AA tax office’s connection with the corporation’s AA tax-related suit. On June 4, 2004, the Corporation shall keep a separate accounting of the corporation’s corporate tax with respect to the future expenses, and on June 4, 2004, the Corporation shall report corporate tax to N on the basis of the revenues from advertising fees and receiving fees. Under the above criteria, the common expenses of profit-making businesses and non-profit businesses, excluding direct expenses, shall be calculated based on the revenues from advertising fees and receiving fees, and in accordance with the above criteria, the amount to be refunded among the corporate tax imposed upon the existing corporation or paid by the corporation, shall be approximately KRW 98.4 billion.

In this regard, on July 2004, the head of the corporate tax planning team prepared a report on the current status of carrying out tax-related affairs by internal documents of the public corporation (the investigation record 2280 pages). The contents of the report are as follows: (a) while carrying out negotiations with the tax authorities on the direction of tax litigation, actively responding to the lawsuit; and (b) by promoting the amendment of the tax-related Acts (the corporate tax). In addition, according to the provisional negotiation proposal proposed by the tax authorities, the Corporation has a tax reduction effect equivalent to approximately KRW 98.4 billion for the corporate tax between the 1993 through 2003 business years, according to the provisional negotiation proposal proposed by the tax authorities."

On the other hand, at the time of the presentation of the provisional mediation proposal, the court of first instance sentenced to the total of 8 cases, such as Nos. 1 2 and 9, etc., 17, and the Corporation won only at the first instance court of the attached Table 1 Nos. 2 and 92.

② On August 20, 2004, the head of the M-Tax Planning Team reported a future promotion plan of tax litigation to the same purport as the attached Table 11 [the summary of the plan to report the promotion plan related to the tax affairs as of August 20, 2004] to the defendant, who is the president of the Red Cross, as of August 20, 2004. The above report began to appear additionally with the terms of "consultation," "an agreement," and "a resolution method other than litigation," which are similar to the above report," which was made around July 2004. On the other hand, the court of first instance sentenced 6 cases such as attached Nos. 10 through 15, etc. by the time of the above report, and the public corporation participated in five cases among them.

③ On October 1, 2004, the head of the M-Tax Planning Team prepared internal documents to the same effect as the attached Form 12 [the summary of the review of pending issues related to the tax litigation affairs of October 1, 2004] stating that it is appropriate for the competent tax authority to resolve the methods of corporate tax consultation and coordination with the corporation through the court” under the title of "the review of pending issues related to the tax litigation affairs of October 1, 2004" (the investigative record No. 2343).

④ On November 2, 2004, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation made an inquiry to the National Tax Service on the tax administration of the Corporation (in the investigation record 2353 page) that included the following questions at the tax authority on November 2, 2004, but did not receive any reply from the National Tax Service.

In accordance with the separate accounting obligation of a nonprofit corporation, when calculating and paying the amount of tax for the calculation of individual gross income of profit-making businesses and common gross income and common deductible expenses distributed for profit-making businesses, i) individual gross income shall be considered as the amount of revenue received in the income statement of the corporation as the individual gross income of a nonprofit business; ii) individual gross income shall be designated as the remainder of revenue other than the amount of revenue received in the income statement of the corporation as the individual gross income of the nonprofit business; and ii) individual deductible expenses shall be designated as the advertising fees and entrusted collection expenses included in the sales expenses among the sales expenses and management expenses of the corporation as the individual gross income of the nonprofit business; and ii) other items of profit and loss statement and tax adjustment items of the non-designated profit and loss statement shall be considered as the common gross income of the nonprofit business and the nonprofit business

On the other hand, at the time of the questioning, the head of the M-Tax Planning Team sought L attorneys-at-law to explain the progress of the conciliation consultation among them, but L attorneys-at-law won in favor of the Corporation, and expressed his objection to the conciliation. However, M did not report the reaction of L attorneys-at-law to the Defendant (the investigation record No. 4177 pages).

⑤ On February 24, 2005, the tax planning team reported to the effect that, upon the request of the board of directors of the Corporation, the tax planning team collected approximately KRW 25.5 billion of corporate tax for the business year 1997, KRW 7.4 billion of corporate tax for the business year 1997, and corporate tax for the business year 1998, and in the future, corporate tax for the business year 199 and 2000 shall also be collected in the future. The tax planning team reported to the effect that, in relation to the progress of the tax litigation on February 24, 2005, the tax planning team reported to the effect that, in accordance with the tax planning team in 2001, it will be able to resolve the pending issue as soon as possible, focusing on the tax planning team in a way that maximizes the interest of the Corporation (i.e., the investigation record 2361 page).

④ On March 7, 2005, the tax authority notified the corporation that the corporate tax (as of March 2, 2005, the notice of March 2, 2005) of KRW 33,332,00,000 (as of March 2, 2005) would be imposed on the corporate tax (as of March 31, 2005) for the reason that the excess amount of the reserve fund for proper purpose business under separate accounting was generated with respect to the corporate tax for the business year 1999 of the corporation (as of March 31, 2005,

7) On March 14, 2005, the head of the M-Tax Planning Team prepared a document stating the details such as the attached Form 13 [a summary of the report on the current status of promotion related to the tax litigation of the Corporation, March 14, 2005] and the attached Form 14 [a summary of the plan for additional measures of corporate tax and corporate tax and corporate tax and corporate tax and corporate tax and corporate tax plan plan report (2379 pages)] as stated in the attached Table 13 [a summary of the report on the current status of promotion related to the tax litigation of the Corporation, March 14, 2005] and the attached Table 14 [a summary of the report on the current status of promotion related to the tax litigation of the Corporation, March 14, 2005]. The former was examined only within the tax planning team and reported to

(4) The objection to the mediation of L lawyer and the response to the construction

① On March 25, 2005, L attorneys received an inquiry from the head of the MTax Planning Team of the Corporation to seek an opinion on the conciliation along with a summary of the proposal of the Tax Office (Investigation Record 248 pages 18) as stated in attached Table 15 [Summary of Consultation with the Tax Authorities of the Corporation], and on March 25, 2005, attached Table 16 [Attachment 16] to the effect that L attorneys oppose the method of conciliation as stated in the summary of opinions on whether or not the actual benefits of the Corporation exist, such as corporate tax (Investigation Record 237 pages).

② On April 14, 2005, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation asked AV attorney-at-law questions about the interpretation of the existing attorney's contingent fee agreements following the conciliation. AV attorney-at-law sent a reply to the effect that the contingent fee should be paid in consideration of the circumstances leading to the conciliation, and the attorney-at-law may terminate the delegation of a lawsuit if the attorney-at-law refuses the request for conciliation of the Corporation, and even in this case, some of the contingent fee should be paid.

③ Around April 2005, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation sent a written request for consultation on the tax-free litigation of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AZ") to V accountants, the representative director of the AZ (hereinafter referred to as "AZ"), along with attached contents i) whether the proposal for construction work, such as attachment, is legitimate in light of the provisions of tax law, ii) whether the proposal for consultation is reasonable, iii) whether it is reasonable to determine the corporate tax base by subtracting the total cost from the total income other than the income of the Corporation from receiving fees, which was conducted by the Corporation in a tax lawsuit, and iv) whether the tax-free corporation is converted into a non-profit corporation, and submitted a written request for consultation on the effect of the tax-free litigation of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "request for consultation on investigation records 2408), and on April 28, 2005, the V accountant of the AZ presented his opinion on the investigation records of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 25).

④ On April 2005, the Corporation issued a transfer of M, which was the head of the tax planning team at the time, to the head of the labor-management cooperation team, due to the labor-management dispute, and issued an order of the former head of the tax planning team to the head of the tax

⑤ On May 2005, the head of the tax planning team of the corporation prepared the document stating that "if the corporate tax is adjusted only to the defendant, who is the president, according to the previous policy, the adverse effect in the lawsuit of value-added is higher than that of the corporation, and if the total input tax amount is calculated in the ratio of the revenue from advertising fees and receiving fees as corporate tax, as in the lawsuit of value-added tax, the effect thereof would offset the corporate tax, and thus, it is necessary to simultaneously adjust and resolve the corporate tax and value-added tax."

6. In the tax planning team of the corporation, the tax planning team presented a comprehensive plan for corporate tax and value-added tax to the tax authority on the beginning of June 2005, but the tax authority showed only the response to the level of recognition of the position of the corporation (the investigative record 2496 pages).

④ On June 16, 2005, theO divided the opinions on the proposal for the formation of the construction project and the fees discussed between L attorneys. In this context, theO asked L attorneys about how to re-disposition in the manner of estimated taxation although L attorneys participated in the tax lawsuit, and L attorneys asked to the effect that " how to do so even in the case where L attorneys are governed by the law."

(8) On June 23, 2005, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation (the President of the Corporation, the defendant), the president of the Corporation, has six or nine winnings in the position of the Corporation, and when considering the progress of the lawsuit, both arguments and the judgment of the court are expected to proceed to the Supreme Court, and thus, it is expected that the lawsuit will proceed to the final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, even during the lawsuit, the tax authorities will impose the additional collection of corporate tax, etc. for the pertinent business year, and even during the lawsuit, the tax authorities will impose the additional collection of corporate tax, etc. for the pertinent business year, and even if the lawsuit outlook is not infinite, it is possible to impose the additional collection method, and eventually, even if the Corporation has won the final decision, it is necessary to promptly resolve the lawsuit, because there is a great burden on the public finance of the Corporation with the authority's additional collection."

L Lawyer argued that it is difficult for the person in charge of the tax office to re-tax the request for the above adjustment of the Corporation on July 5, 2005, and that in the case of corporate tax and value-added tax from 1995 to 2000, it cannot be collected again due to the expiration of the exclusion period in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 20041459 Decided February 25, 2005, there is no practical benefit to request the Corporation to adjust the case (the investigation record 258 pages).

① On July 12, 2005, the Corporation demanded L attorneys to file an application for mediation with the next court with the same content as the attached Table 19 [a summary of the official document requesting mediation from the court as of July 12, 2005] (a summary of the investigation record 270 pages 2488). However, L attorneys sent reply to L attorneys on July 15, 2005 as of July 15, 2005 and a report on value-added tax return on construction after 2001 is justifiable as it was in accordance with the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus the Corporation has no practical benefit in filing a request for mediation on the grounds that there is no need for concern thereof (the investigation record 272 pages).

On the other hand, around July 19, 2005, the Corporation appointed P, an in-house lawyer, as a joint agent of the tax litigation, and notified L lawyer of the fact (in-house record 293 pages, 2491 pages).

(10) On July 13, 2005, the Tax Planning Team prepared a report on the progress of the pending issues and countermeasures against the defendant on July 13, 2005, as shown in the attached Table 20 [Attachment 20 [Attachment 13] to partly modify the mediation plan, such as accepting the reasoning of each judgment of the court of first instance against the public corporation, and reporting on the progress of the pending issues and countermeasures against the defendant (the investigation record 2495 pages).

(v)a request for conciliation to the Seoul High Court and the Court's recommendations for conciliation;

① On July 18, 2005, the Corporation submitted an application for the designation of conciliation date to the Seoul High Court, the appellate court in charge of tax litigation, to the five Special Appellate Division and the Special 7 Special Appellate Division, and submitted a statement of opinion to the following effect on August 23, 2005 (In investigation records, 1503 pages, 2507 pages).

- The Corporation shall refund the corporate tax paid by the tax authorities for the business year 196, 1997, and 1998 to KRW 50.6 billion, the Corporation shall withdraw the lawsuit, and the corporate tax to be paid by the Corporation after the date of mediation shall be determined by the Corporate Tax Act to the tax authorities as to whether the tax base is determined in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act and to ask the tax authorities whether it is legitimate

② On August 26, 2005, the Corporation appointed a law firm BS (AM) as a joint agent for a tax lawsuit and concluded a contract for delegation of a lawsuit with 30 million won for a contingent fee (70% payment of contingent fees at the time of establishment of mediation reflecting the intention of the Corporation, and 30% payment of contingent fees at the time of establishment of mediation within the end of October). On September 13, 2005, the Corporation notified L attorneys of their written opinions and appointment of a joint representative about the adjustment of the corporation on September 29, 2005 (in the investigation record, 295 pages, 2532 pages), and finally notified L attorneys of the termination of the delegation contract with L attorneys (in the investigation record, 2537 pages).

③ On September 14, 2005, the board of directors of the Corporation confirmed the ‘decision-making process that decided on a request for the conciliation of the court of the tax litigation rather than to expand unnecessary tax disputes,' to the effect that, if the final decision of the court was made on September 14, 2005, it should proceed more over several years in the future, and even if the final decision was made, specific taxation methods have not been presented, so the Corporation and the National Tax Service have no choice but to continue tax disputes, and that, in the decision of the first instance court, there have been some common positions on key issues, it is desirable that the government agency and the public broadcasting will resolve the decision-making process that decided on a request for conciliation of the court of the tax litigation rather than to expand unnecessary tax disputes (con

④ On October 12, 2005, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court of the tax lawsuit, opened the first conciliation date of the tax lawsuit and tried to hear the opinions on the future recommendations for mediation (in case of the investigation record 4533, 6309). On the following day, the Seoul High Court sent the "Recommendation for Mediation of Disputes concerning Corporate Tax" to the public corporation and the tax authority for the prompt resolution of the dispute (in case of the investigation record 316 pages), which reflects the contents of the "written opinion on the mediation of the public corporation on August 23, 2005" (in case of the investigation record 316 pages), and the contents of the recommendations

- The superintendent of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office shall cancel the imposition of corporate tax and special rural development tax for the business year 1996 and special rural development tax for the Corporation on September 1, 2001, the imposition of KRW 15,922,923,594, the imposition of KRW 23,289,421,00 for corporate tax and special rural development tax for the business year 1997 on March 3, 2003, the imposition of KRW 23,289,421,00 for corporate tax and special rural development tax for the business year 1998 on March 16, 2004, and the imposition of KRW 6,729,735,80 for corporate tax and special rural development tax for the business year 1998 on March 16, 200

- The amount of corporate tax to be paid by the Corporation after the date of recommendation for adjustment shall be determined by the Corporate Tax Law and shall be asked to the head of the Yeongdeungpo Tax Office on the feasibility of the assessment standards and shall be determined by the head of Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office in

- When the above disposition is revoked and the refund decision is made, the Corporation shall withdraw the action, and the Yeongdeungpo chief of the tax office shall consent thereto.

⑤ On October 26, 2005, the board of directors of the Corporation filed a first lawsuit from the tax planning team after the 508th regular board of directors. However, even if the Supreme Court's decision is made on the issue of the burden of proof of expenses (purchase tax amount), the specific criteria for calculating the cost (purchase tax amount) are not presented. Therefore, it is desirable for the tax authorities to set the tax payment standards through the court's conciliation function as a concern for the prolonged and additional additional additional collection of corporate tax due to concerns such as the prolonged circulation of litigation, which is anticipated to impose and collect taxes again on a new basis, and that it is desirable for the tax authorities to set the tax payment standards through the court's conciliation function as a concern for the expansion of litigation due to the prolonged and additional collection of corporate tax (the investigation record 5439 page).

(6) On the other hand, as to the above mediation movement, AC submitted a petition to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 31, 2005, and adjusted the case because it is not possible for the Corporation to win the petition. If this is true, it would eventually refund the tax that would not be possible to win the Yeongdeungpo Military Tax Office, and the Corporation would evade the tax that is lawfully paid, and it is necessary to take measures to prevent such a situation since it would not be possible for the Corporation to evade the tax that is legally paid (the investigation record 1565 pages).

7. The Seoul High Court, the appellate court of the tax lawsuit, set the second adjustment date on November 2, 2005, and then sent a recommendation for adjustment of value-added tax to the Corporation and the tax authorities on the following day.

(Investigation Records 1570 pages).26) Details of the court's recommendation for adjustment related to value-added tax are as follows:

- Where calculating a legitimate value-added tax amount to be paid by the Corporation after the date of the recommendation of the instant conciliation, the input tax amount irrelevant to the corporation’s taxable business is the input tax amount under Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and the input tax amount generated by the department operated for the collection

- The Corporation shall settle the value-added tax amount paid during the preceding period from 1996 to 2005 by applying the calculation basis of value-added tax under paragraph 1, and shall pay the revised return only when the additional tax amount occurs.

- The Corporation shall withdraw the action of this case immediately upon completion of the proceedings under paragraph 2 above and the director of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office shall consent thereto.

8. The board of directors of the Corporation has received from the Tax Planning Team on November 9, 2005, the report of the progress of tax litigation conciliation as shown in the attached Table 21 [the summary of the report of progress of tax conciliation of the Corporation on November 9, 2005] from the Tax Planning Team on November 509 (the investigative record is below 2565 pages).

(6) Examining the feasibility of recommendations for conciliation to external specialized institutions

① On April 15, 2005, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation requested AZ to review the feasibility of the proposal of the Corporation. In addition to the Seoul High Court's first conciliation date, 2005, 12.27, the first conciliation date of the Special Division 5 (Seoul High Court's 2005, 107) sought advice on the promotion of tax litigation-related court mediation (in case of investigation record 2575), including the following (in case of investigation record 2575), and in case of winning the case on October 22, 2005, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation requested the defendant to seek advice on the promotion of tax litigation-related court mediation (in case of winning the case, the Tax Planning Team of the Corporation will settle the case by mediation for the prompt and reasonable resolution of the dispute, it was the most appropriate judgment that the position of the Corporation will terminate the case through mediation was prepared and submitted to the defendant the summary of the report on investigation records / [the summary of the Corporation's question / [the summary of the investigation record 2581, 2006.25].25.26

- The possibility of admitting the initial argument in the tax litigation of the delegated attorney-at-law to the effect that all the costs should be deducted from the calculation of the corporate tax and the deduction of all the input tax amounts in the calculation of the value-added tax, if the tax litigation

- The judgment of the first instance court of a tax lawsuit is about the failure of the public corporation depending on the existence of each burden of proof, such as that the materials of the public corporation alone are not enough to distinguish the deductible expenses of profit-making business in case of corporate tax, and the input tax amount related to the taxable business in case of value-added tax, and presenting the method of estimated investigation as an alternative. In case of corporate tax, it is possible to withdraw the request for revision of reduction or exemption of the public corporation, to be refunded tax by the tax authority, and in case of value-added tax, it is recognized that the value-added tax prior to the date of adjustment is all recognized as it is, and in case of value-added tax, there

- The validity of the logic of AT of Law Firm to the effect that the legal nature of the receiving fees, when the adjustment of the court is established in accordance with the basic principles of the System, is ambiguous and the basis for collecting the receiving fees ceases to exist, and that the receiving fees will be recognized as the price for business revenue or broadcasting services;

- The validity of the AT logic that it is reasonable to recognize that the court's conciliation is subject to receiving fees through the conciliation is not binding upon the tax authorities even if the court determines the new method of calculating the corporate tax by questioning the method of questioning when the conciliation is established in accordance with the basic principles of the Corporation; and ultimately, it is reasonable to recognize that it is subject to receiving fees

- The procedure of recommending mediation cannot be prepared because there is no express provision in the law, so it is not identical to the final and conclusive judgment, so it is not affected by the taxation authority in the future, and if the mediation is concluded, whether it affects the taxation of the taxation authority by the future principles of protection of trust in the future.

② On November 4, 2005, after the date when the Seoul High Court's recommendation for adjustment of value-added tax was made, the audit team of the Corporation requested an external legal counsel related to tax adjustment as stated in attached Table 24 [a summary of request for legal advice from the audit team of the Corporation on November 4, 2005], including whether it is impossible to conduct an additional investigation according to the logic of Lat-at-law listed on the bulletin board of the Corporation, as well as whether it is a matter of acceptance of adjustment or acceptance, the audit team of the Corporation shall determine whether it complies with the adjustment of the questions of the Corporation on November 11, 2005, including the possibility of winning tax litigation and the cost of litigation, and whether it is a matter of question of whether it is possible to accept AX (AT, BU), AY (O) and AY (O) as stated in attached Table 25 [a summary of the investigation report of the Corporation on November 4, 2005]. 3618.

③ On October 205, the issue of adjustment was filled out and discussed on the bulletin board of the corporation, and then requested an ordinary audit of tax adjustment in the tax planning team, the audit room of the corporation was conducting a daily audit from November 1, 2005 to April 14 of the same month, and the audit team AK is able to conduct an additional tax collection even if it won the corporation as a result of the last day of the audit period. Accordingly, it is possible for the audit team to participate in an additional tax collection even if it won the corporation. In addition to a document describing the results of the legal advice request for each of the above legal advice requests of the law firm AX and AY (the summary of the legal advice request of the audit team on November 14, 2005) as stated in attached Table 27 [Attachment 27] to the effect that "report on the result of legal advice for adjustment," as stated in the notice of policy advice, whether to accept the recommendation for adjustment is possible for management to impose reduction or burden of proof as an estimate investigation, and it can be concluded that it will be 20 (50).

④ Meanwhile, on November 14, 2005, the tax authorities also requested the AJ attorney-at-law of the W legal office to review the laws on the recommendation of the Seoul High Court in Seoul High Court, and on November 14, 2005, received from the AJ attorney-at-law the review of the recommendation of mediation in attached Form 28 [a summary of the review of the recommendation of mediation as of November 14, 2005]. AJ attorney-at-law in attached Form 28 [a summary of the review of the mediation recommendation as of November 14, 2005], and around that time, the tax authorities shall summarize the internal contents of the review in order to have a high possibility of loss of the State in the second instance, and there is a concern that the dispute might continue due to difficult assessment, it is reasonable to accept the recommendation of mediation of the Seoul High Court.

(7) Acceptance of recommendations by the Corporation and the tax authorities for court adjustment and withdrawal of the corporation's action

① On November 16, 2005, the Corporation decided to accept a court’s recommendation for mediation through the 710th management conference (the investigation record 3801 year). On the same day, the Corporation notified its acceptance intention to the Seoul High Court in charge of Seoul High Court (the investigation record 2631 page) and at the same time asked the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as stated in the attached Table 29 [a summary of the criteria for calculating corporate tax as of November 16, 2005] against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. The basic content was the same as the inquiry on November 2, 2004 (the investigation record 2618 pages).

② On December 27, 2005, the tax authorities also notified the court department in charge of the internal procedure to the effect that they accept the recommendation for adjustment concerning the value-added tax on the 30th of the same month.

③ On January 5, 2006 and the 24th day of the same month, the Corporation received a refund of approximately KRW 55.6 billion, including a person who has received a refund from the Youngbu Tax Director, for the business year 1998. However, the Corporation received a refund of KRW 17.8 billion, by offsetting the amount of corporate tax collected for the business year 1999, scheduled to pay the amount of corporate tax collected for the business year 1999, and actually transferred the amount of KRW 17.8 billion to the corporate account (the investigation record No. 4921, Jan. 5, 2006).

④ On March 7, 2006, the Corporation asked the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the corporate tax assessment criteria pursuant to the court recommendation on November 16, 2005, under the same contents as the question on the basis of calculation of corporate tax as the above "as of November 16, 2006" (in case of investigation record 1450 pages). On March 24, 2006, the Seoul Regional Tax Office issued a reply to the criteria of separate accounting (in case of investigation record), that the Corporation's common deductible expenses incurred in conducting broadcasting due to the receipt fees and the advertising fees received by the Corporation shall be calculated in proportion to the income, advertising fees, etc. of the pertinent receiving fees in accordance with Article 76 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and that the individual gross income or deductible expenses are the actual use, character, etc. of the revenue and expenditure."

⑤ The tax authority decided to refund the amount of corporate tax collected for the business year 1999, which was paid by the Corporation, to KRW 33.3 billion and its additional interest rate, and refunded it to the Corporation on April 19, 2006 (Investigation Record 5051 pages).

(h) Management status of the Corporation and relationship with a trade union;

① The size of revenues for the fiscal year 200 to 2004 of the Corporation is as shown in [the size of revenues between the fiscal year of the Corporation 2000 through 2004] stated in [the size of revenues between the fiscal year of the Corporation.] particularly after its establishment, approximately KRW 2.7 billion in 1979, KRW 1.3 billion in 1980, KRW 7.8 billion in 1981, KRW 14.4 billion in 1988, KRW 198, KRW 58 billion in 1998, and KRW 63.8 billion in 2004, and all of the remaining fiscal years were recorded in black.

On the other hand, the ratio of revenues such as receiving fees and advertising fees of the corporation was 4:6 on an average, and the overall amount of revenues of advertising fees has decreased (the investigative record 3146 pages).

② At the 496 regular meeting of the Corporation held on April 27, 2005, ‘i) the net loss of the tax amount of KRW 36.7 billion in the first quarter of January 4, 2005, which was held by the Corporation. The major person has generated KRW 36.6 billion in comparison with the target of advertising revenue; (ii) the net loss of the tax amount of KRW 81.4 billion in the first quarter of 2005 (excluding the estimated corporate tax of KRW 36.6 billion, the estimated amount of KRW 4.4 billion in the annual amount of KRW 4.6 billion in the annual amount of KRW 4.4 billion in the annual amount of KRW 4.6 billion in the annual amount of KRW 19.6 billion in the annual amount of KRW 19.3 billion in the business expenses; (iii) the director is expected to inform the Corporation of the change in the amount of corporate tax out of 4.5 billion in the annual amount of corporate tax to be paid; and (iv) the head of the corporation could not have reported the annual amount of KRW 20.4.4.5 billion in the year year.

③ In order to improve the management status, the Defendant, who is the president of the Corporation, announced a management innovation proposal on June 1, 2005 (a summary of the management innovation proposal of the Corporation, June 1, 2005), such as an entry (a summary of the investigation record 3310 pages), 30).

④ On June 14, 2005, the labor union of the public corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “labor union”) made a resolution to the effect that the temporary representative meeting (including the submission of counsel) held on June 14, 2005 is not a simple financial person, but a management shall be held responsible for resignation in order to overcome public and managerial crisis, and if this is premised, the labor union may also participate in the burden of suffering. The contents of the resolution have been supported by 65% of the representatives.

⑤ On June 15, 2005, the labor union management division, including Q, etc., the chairman of the labor union of the Corporation, took a role in explaining the matters to be resolved at the representative's meeting at the board of directors of the Corporation (No. 16), and Q, who attended the board of directors, stated that "the representative of the labor union shall be held liable in the form of resignation before the 65% of the f5% of the f5% of the f5% of the f99. This is because there is fear that the f5% of the f5% of the f5% of the f5% of the f999. It does not mean that the flick may be repeated if the flick is not responsible for the flick management. In addition, all the persons related to the flick management does not require that all the flick management should take the flick of the K's overall crisis. It is a statement to the effect that the flick of the flick's.

(6) The Emergency Countermeasure Committee of the Trade Union and Labor Relations began to have the agricultural nature before the president's office in order to accomplish its purport on June 20, 2005, and Q of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee's chairperson on July 5, 2005 (No. 26 of the submission of counsel). Meanwhile, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment adopted a non-Confidence vote of the president on July 15, 2005 and started to cast a vote from July 19, 2005 (No. 4284 of the Investigation Record).

7) Around 18:00 on July 22, 2005, the time prior to the commencement of the ballot counting, the Defendant drafted Q Q and the agreement, the chairman of the Trade Union of the Corporation (in the face of 3346 investigation records), and Q No. Q no. Q and the chairman ceased to stop planting. On the same day, the agreement was also prepared along with the above agreement, but the agreement was disclosed, but the agreement was not disclosed pursuant to both agreements. Meanwhile, the content of the agreement and back agreement entered into between the Defendant and Q, the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, the president of the Corporation, and Q No. 15, the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Committee, and the content of the agreement are as shown in attached Form 32 [the contents of the agreement and back agreement].

④ On August 17, 2005, the Corporation held a temporary directors meeting on 504 occasions (the investigation record 3396 pages), and the Defendant, the president, was the Defendant, the main cause of the implementation of the first half of 2005, that advertising revenue was less than 33.7 billion won compared to the target, and that the KRW 11.2 billion was incurred due to the delay in corporate tax for the business year 1999, and that the amount of the KRW 36.6 billion was anticipated to have occurred during the second half of 23.7 billion. On November 9, 2005, the Corporation held a temporary directors meeting on 509th of 2005 (the investigation record 3457 pages), and the Defendant was expected to have suffered KRW 51.7 billion from the execution of the second half of 2005,36.3 billion from the date of the second half of 200 billion from the date of the year 199.

9) According to the settlement of accounts of the 2005 fiscal year that was compiled by the Corporation around February 2006, there was a black person with approximately KRW 57.6 billion calculated by subtracting the corporate tax cost from the amount of KRW 653.6 billion for advertising fees, the amount of receiving fees, the amount of net income for the current net income, the amount of KRW 57.6 billion for the current net income from the amount of KRW 58.7 billion for the current net income, (No. 20), 32), and the current status of the monthly cumulative profit and loss in 2005 are as shown in attached Table 3 [the current status of monthly cumulative profit and loss of the Corporation in 205].

(i) Other matters.

① From September 6, 2005 to September 8, 2005, the East Asia reported an article about how the Corporation intends to resolve the case through a recommendation for adjustment in a tax lawsuit. Among them, the content of the "application for adjustment" was included in L lawyer's assertion, such as "a waiver of the amount of KRW 150 billion out of the refund of corporate tax and value-added tax," "a waiver of the amount of KRW 150 billion out of the refund of the corporate tax and value-added tax," "a waiver of the amount of KRW 1,50 billion from the refund of the corporate tax and value-added tax," "an amount of KRW 1,50 billion from K or not shall be borne by viewers' receiving fees every year if the application for adjustment is accepted", and "receiving fees" shall not be the amount of revenue as defined in the nature of

② Around September 13, 2005, the Corporation notified L attorneys at the time of termination of the delegation agreement of a tax action that was performed by the Corporation on the ground that it was "a person who breached the duty of due care of a good manager as a mandatory, such as refusing to make a request for the adjustment of the corporation, taking into account the issues concerning the court adjustment promoted by the Corporation through an article article, and criticizes and leaks the policies of construction works related to the tax action," etc. (the investigation record 599 pages);

③ On November 18, 2005, AC filed a lawsuit claiming damages by defamation against the Defendant and 0 et al., but it became final and conclusive to the effect of dismissing the claim. 33)

④ The tax planning team of the corporation was dismantled on April 2006 (not more than 1782 pages of investigation records).

⑤ L Lawyer brought a lawsuit against the Corporation on July 18, 2006 against the Corporation. AC accused the Defendant on May 14, 2008 against the prosecution for occupational breach of trust. The Defendant was dismissed from the president of the Corporation on August 11, 2008, and the Prosecutor filed the instant public prosecution on August 20, 208.

4. Determination

A. Key issue

Ultimately, the issues of the instant case are whether the public corporation has intentionally suffered damage to the public corporation under the awareness that it would allow it even if it would result in damage to the public corporation’s property for the personal purpose of exempting the Defendant from liability for business insolvency and maintaining the status of the president of the public corporation without reasonable grounds, and whether the Defendant had the intention to commit occupational breach of trust, namely, whether the Defendant had the intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

B. Legal principles

(1) The significance of the crime of occupational breach of trust

The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains economic benefits or causes a third party to obtain such benefits by an act in violation of his/her duty and thereby causes loss to the principal. The term "act in violation of his/her duty" includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the person who delegated the handling of affairs by failing to perform an act in accordance with the provisions of statutes, the terms of a contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act expected not to perform as a matter of course, and "when he/she causes loss to his/her property" includes a case where he/she inflicts loss on the person's property, as a whole. It includes not only a case where a real loss is done but also a case where a risk of actual loss to property arises. It includes not only such active loss, such as reduction of property directly, such as disposal of property, guarantee or provision of security, but also a case where an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the person who entrusted the handling of affairs, which is expected to not perform as a matter of course.

(2) Criteria for determining the criminal intent of breach of trust

(A) in general:

In general, in the crime of breach of trust, the intent of the crime of breach of trust is established when it is combined with the perception that the principal causes or is likely to cause property damage to the principal as a result of the act, and that the perception that the principal or a third party obtains property benefits is in violation of his/her duty, and there is no need to obtain property damage to the principal, or that such perception is sufficient with domination. Such subjective element of the crime of breach of trust is sufficient. In the event that the defendant denies the criminal intent by asserting that he/she committed the act at issue for his/her own interest, the subjective element of the crime of breach of trust is to be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance should be determined by the observation or analysis power closely established based on normal experience (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Do1523, Nov. 22, 198; 200Do429, Jul. 29, 2009).

In addition, even in cases where an actor committed an act with the intent to act for himself/herself as an unlawful act in violation of the statutes or social rules, if the purpose and purpose of the act are to be deemed to be unlawful and to be unacceptable, even if the result of the act is for some individuals, the intent to act for his/her own interest is only incidental, and if it is proved that the intent to act for his/her own interest or to act for his/her own interest is to be the principal, the intent of breach of trust shall not be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do1696, Jul. 22, 2002; 2005Do4640, May 29,

(B) In the case of managerial judgment:

In determining whether there was an intention in breach of trust to a business operator in relation to a business judgment, the same legal doctrine as the method of proving the intention in general in breach of trust applies to the business management judgment. However, even if a business operator has made a prudent decision with the belief that the business operator would be consistent with the interests of the company based on the information collected within the extent possible on the good faith without intent to take any personal benefits because the risks inherent in the business management may cause losses to the company, the forecast may be taken into account. As such, in determining whether there was an intention in breach of trust to a business operator in relation to a business judgment, the characteristics of the business management judgment should be taken into account in determining whether there was an intention in breach of trust. Even in such a case, if the business operator intended to impose criminal liability for the crime of occupational breach of trust by relaxing the interpretation standards on intent, this would violate the principle of no punishment without the law, and even if deemed from a policy perspective, the business operator, the source of business of operating income, as well as social losses, may not be denied the legal doctrine that the crime of breach of trust under the current Criminal Act is 20.

As a civil precedent related thereto, "the officer of a financial institution has the duty of care as a good manager to the financial institution to which he belongs, and thus, he/she shall be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty of care as an officer when he/she faithfully performs his/her duty. However, in a case where a financial institution is liable for damages due to a failure to perform his/her duty on the ground of a failure to perform his/her duty against the officer, the officer who makes the decision on the loan shall be held liable not to have caused any damage as a result of the performance of his/her duty, even if the result of the performance of his/her duty was incurred, and it cannot be concluded that the judgment of the officer who made the decision on the loan violated his/her duty of care or duty of loyalty as a good manager, and if an officer of a financial institution performs his/her duty in good faith for the maximum interest of the company in accordance with procedures appropriate for the pertinent business decision, the officer's decision on management shall be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty of care or duty of loyalty with the company."

(c)review;

6) Even if the above facts were known, the following facts were to be revealed, i.e., (i) recorded an amount of 63.8 billion won for the first time after 200 years, and in particular, it was unlikely for the Seoul Metropolitan Government to record an amount of 80 billion won for 205 years, and (ii) there were concerns about the reduction of wages or the amount of employment of the Corporation for the reasons that it would not have been possible for the Seoul Metropolitan Government Government to calculate the tax base and the amount of additional tax for the reasons that it would not have been possible for the Corporation to calculate the amount of tax revenue for the first time, and that it would not have been possible for the Corporation to calculate the amount of tax revenue for the first time after 204 to calculate the amount of tax revenue for the corporation to which it would have been estimated that it would not have been possible to calculate the amount of tax revenue for the corporation to which it would have been estimated that it would have been more favorable for the Corporation to pay the amount of tax revenue for the corporation to its employees.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the same facts of recognition, it is difficult to see that the defendant intentionally, under the recognition that he/she would have no choice but to accept it even if the result of incurring property damage from an economic point of view would result in the extension of his/her term of office on April 2006, it is difficult to see that he/she intentionally, i.e., the mediation of this case in lieu of receiving a final judgment in a higher court with intent to cause occupational breach of trust, on the basis of the information collected within reasonable scope.

(1) Characteristics of adjustment

Although the Corporation has actively presented a proposal for mediation, it cannot be deemed that the mediation of this case begins only with the intention of the Corporation or its contents is made only with the unilateral concession of the Corporation in light of the following characteristics of mediation. In particular, in relation to the issue of imposing liability for occupational breach of trust due to the act conducted in the process of participating in the court's mediation in terms of the significance or purpose of mediation, it should be more strict in recognizing the motive or intent of crime.

(1) The conciliation or settlement is an effective means of resolving disputes that may reduce waste of social and economic aspects caused by the prolongedization of disputes and destroy consumables caused by aggravation of appraisal by the parties, by settling prompt and economic disputes through mutual understanding and concession between the parties and the parties, and also encourage the activation of the settlement of disputes by the conciliation from the standpoint of the court.

② In particular, in the case of the instant tax lawsuit, the method of de facto adjustment was used by the Corporation to withdraw the lawsuit after cancelling or changing the disposition taken by the tax authority, which is the defendant, by taking the recommendation of the adjudication division into consideration by the tax authority, which is the defendant. This method is not prescribed by the relevant law, but is practically used in the actual

③ The fact that the dispute between the public corporation and the public corporation cannot be determined prior to the final judicial judgment is that it is, in itself, a conciliation is concluded in accordance with the agreement with the involvement of the court. In particular, if the court approves a proposal for conciliation and provides recommendations to the other party, it is difficult to take the responsibility for breach of trust in view of the nature of judicial action, and the responsibility for aiding and abetting the court may also be a problem. In addition, if a breach of trust is committed, the tax authority shall return the tax amount received unfairly.

(2) Possibility of winning in the appellate trial of the first instance judgment in the instant tax lawsuit

In the facts charged, the prosecutor uses the expression of ‘the winning of the Corporation' or ‘the tax litigation in which the winning of the Corporation is certain' or ‘the winning of the Corporation' in the higher court, and ‘the possibility of winning of the Corporation' in the higher court. On this premise, the defendant is asked for the charge of occupational breach of trust on the ground that the defendant continued the instant tax litigation, did not choose any more favorable or reasonable mediation plan than the Corporation. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is doubtful whether the public corporation liable for tax payment can recognize the possibility of winning of the final winning of the Corporation from the standpoint of the public corporation that the possibility of winning of the final winning of the public corporation is greater than 50%, and it is determined that the public corporation may not be concluded or conviction objectively that the possibility of winning of the public corporation exceeds 50%. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the logical relation between the issue of possibility of winning of winning of the public corporation and whether the defendant

① Of the judgment of the first instance court of a tax lawsuit, the status in which either party cannot be deemed to be superior, such as winning the construction in the nine lawsuit, losing in the seven lawsuit, etc.

② In relation to the failure of a lawsuit, there are numerous elements that affect the outcome of the lawsuit, such as the degree of effort of the disputing parties, the probative value or credibility of the collected evidence, the scope of the persons who can testify, the testimony of the relevant parties, the degree of effort and expertise of an agent conducting the lawsuit, the characteristics of the adjudication division in charge and the degree of understanding on the relevant field, etc. In addition, it is impossible to predict the result of a specific lawsuit until a judgment is rendered, and it is also impossible to predict clearly that the judgment of the lower court rendered is maintained in the superior trial of the contents thereof. In fact, even in the case of [Attachment 1] 3 and 4, the Plaintiff won the lawsuit at the first instance court, but finally lost the Plaintiff.

③ With respect to corporate tax, the argument that the Corporation operates a broadcasting business, i) is not accepted by the first instance court that, as it operates a broadcasting business, excluding receiving fees, it should not incur any profit nor deduct all of the expenses corresponding to receiving fees from deductible expenses, and ii) in relation to value added taxes, the input tax amount paid by the Corporation must be deducted from deductible expenses.

④ As to the burden of proof in the instant tax lawsuit, the opinion of AY law firm, which sought legal advice from the audit team of the Corporation, is the position that the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the grounds for reduction in the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of revocation of a request for reduction in the tax lawsuit. In this regard, the ruling of the first instance court of 15 [Attachment 1] among the tax lawsuits, also requests the tax authorities to correct the reported tax base and tax amount on the grounds that the tax base and tax amount were erroneous. It is reasonable to view that the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the initial tax base and tax amount were wrong in the tax base and tax amount reported by the taxpayer. The Plaintiff’s request for reduction in the tax amount is without merit because it cannot be deemed that the initial tax base and tax amount of the 202 business year exceeded the tax base and tax amount to be reported by the tax law, and the Defendant’s above rejection disposition is legitimate, and in principle, the tax authority has the burden of proving necessary expenses or burden of proof in the case of a general tax lawsuit, as well as necessary expenses.

⑤ All of the decisions rendered by the Corporation in the tax litigation are that it is difficult to view that the separate accounting was made only by the cost report of construction works, and that the tax authority should calculate corporate tax and value-added tax by means of estimated taxation. In the case of attached Tables 1, 5, 6, and 7 lost by the Corporation, the tax authority may dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the cost report of construction works was divided into the expenses incurred by the Corporation related to profit-making business and non-profit-making business, based on the cost report of construction works, and the value-added tax to be paid by the Plaintiff is higher than the value-added tax to be properly paid by the Plaintiff. As such, the taxation data held by the Plaintiff at the time of construction is not sufficient to impose tax, and it was a situation in which

(3) Possibility of re-assessment of corporate tax, etc. according to the decision of tax litigation

In the instant tax lawsuit, as seen below, whether the tax authority can re-calculated and impose a reasonable amount of tax in the instant case where the corporation won a final winning in the judgment, may re-assessment the amount of tax as follows. In particular, even if the exclusion period has expired, it may be deemed possible to re-assessment in accordance with the purport of the judgment within the scope where at least the amount of tax is not increased by Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As such, from the standpoint of the corporation liable for tax payment, it may be deemed that the relevant conciliation was promoted in order to prevent the occurrence of a dispute by the judgment from causing the final resolution of the dispute and

① At the same time, the Seoul Central District Court (Supreme Court Decision 2006Gahap61265 Decided October 9, 2007) held that in the case of fees claimed by L attorneys-at-law who performed the instant tax lawsuit on the premise of winning in the tax lawsuit against the public corporation, “it may be sentenced to a judgment different from that of the first instance court at the appellate court of the instant tax lawsuit,” and at the same time, even if the instant tax lawsuit is terminated as the result of the first instance court, the tax authority may calculate and impose the legitimate amount of corporate tax for the 1995 business year on the basis of the estimated tax, and the tax authority may impose taxes on the public corporation through a reinvestigation, and if the tax disposition was revoked due to mistake in the method of calculating the amount of tax, the tax authority may again impose corporate tax, etc. by correcting the error within one year from the date of the final judgment.”

② Inasmuch as it is impossible to re-assessment the tax by the method of estimated investigation due to the peculiarity of the construction work, it is argued to the effect that the tax lawsuit will be concluded due to the winning of the construction work and the refund of the tax, but all of the 7-36 tax litigation in favor of the construction work cited by the prosecutor can be regarded as a teleological judgment on the grounds of the first instance judgment, but in conclusion, the fair corporate tax or value-added tax shall not be computed by the method of estimated investigation. In conclusion, the construction was ultimately a situation in which it is impossible to prove that the tax can be refunded by the method of estimated investigation because it is impossible to make a final return of the tax due to the impossibility of the taxation by the method of estimated investigation only if the construction works

(3) Moreover, in the case of corporate tax, it is difficult to present persuasive evidence as to the conciliation proposal of this case by the AJ attorney representing the tax authority. It is difficult for the Corporation to present persuasive evidence as to the business classification even after the end of the fiscal year. In the case of corporate tax, there is room for controversy as to whether it can be subject to the estimated taxation under the Act, and even if it is intended to impose the estimated taxation by considering that it falls under the requirements for the estimation, there is technical difficulty in the estimated taxation because it is difficult to select an agency which should be the basis for estimation even if it is intended to do so. In the case of taxation by the method of estimated investigation, new revocation litigation is repeatedly instituted at the time of taxation by the method of estimated investigation, and there is a high possibility that the contents of the conciliation recommendation of the court will continue to continue the resolution of the dispute, which reflects the real taxation circumstances, the court's position and the position of the public corporation. It is concluded that the State's decision is more reasonable or more reasonable than the Seoul administrative court's decision's decision that it will be 1).

④ According to the second instance court's ruling, L attorney-at-law also presented the opinion that "the Corporation is running broadcasting business and advertising business" in the title of "the opinion of the appellate court's decision on August 1998 (Evidence No. 4 submitted by counsel). In practice, it is a disadvantage to the Corporation in a situation where it is impossible to distinguish between broadcasting business and advertising business, and the amount of corporate tax, etc. paid in the future can not be ruled out even though it is excluded from receiving fees subject to taxation, and even in the case of value-added tax, there is a big problem that purchase tax burden will continue regardless of the consideration of receiving fees."

⑤ From the perspective of ordinary people’s legal sentiment, if it is impossible to impose taxes on the ground that the former decentralization is insufficient even though the income such as advertising fees was generated, it would be difficult to accept it from the perspective of tax justice. As seen earlier, public officials of the Seoul Regional Tax Office may cause difficulties in re-taxation and may cause other issues if they lose in a tax lawsuit, but ultimately, it would be difficult to sufficiently predict that the tax authority would impose taxes again by the method of estimation investigation according to the purport of the judgment, and it is difficult to see that such prediction is unreasonable or unreasonable.

④ At the time of conciliation of this case, the Corporation filed a lawsuit of unjust enrichment and about 10 years have passed since the filing of a lawsuit of unjust enrichment, and about 6 years have passed since the filing of a tax lawsuit, it appears that the period of at least a few years has to lapse until the Supreme Court rendered a final judgment on the tax lawsuit. If a tax is re-assessment in accordance with the purport of the judgment, the construction should bring a revocation lawsuit again. Accordingly, if a tax lawsuit should be concluded by a judgment, it was impossible to find the end at the time.

7) In addition, there are methods of establishing reasonable taxation standards for future corporate tax and value-added tax, such as enacting and amending statutes, presenting the standards by the Supreme Court decision, and setting the standards by mutual agreement between the parties. The first method is the jurisdiction of the legislative department or the former Ministry of Finance and Economy, which is not capable of resolving only the intent of the parties, and is not helpful in solving the tax litigation itself due to the problem of retroactive taxation. The second method is that there is no guarantee that the time long and definite standards are presented in the judgment. The third method is intended to resolve between the parties, but the third method is not in violation of the general legal principles or principles of taxation, and the third method can establish relatively clear standards without any special restriction, and it is advantageous that all existing tax litigation can be resolved en bloc.

(4) Legal nature of the Corporation

In the legal sentiment of the general public, the Corporation is a public institution even though it is not a non-profit public corporation itself in its legal nature, and the legal nature of receiving fees is also quasi-tax character, and there is no doubt as to whether it is desirable for the Corporation to dispute with the tax authorities while paying various costs of lawsuit in order to win the tax lawsuit. If the defendant's view of these legal sentiment from the perspective of the defendant, it is not easy for the Corporation to raise only a favorable position in the same position as the representative of the general profit-making corporation.

(5) Opinions of tax authorities

The prosecutor presented it on the ground that the possibility of winning the tax litigation of this case is certain when the tax authority examines the proposal of this case, that is, the National Tax Service, that is, the State's possibility of winning the case is low, or that the opinion of the competent authorities of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office who reviewed the proposal of this case lowers the possibility of winning the tax lawsuit of this case. However, it is difficult to deem that the public prosecutor has a direct relationship with the possibility of winning the tax lawsuit of this case from the standpoint of the taxpayer.

(6) Details of the project’s attempt to coordinate

The prosecutor presented the defendant's intent to avoid the financial pressure of the Corporation and the defendant's intent to avoid the pressure of the management of the union, as a basis for the motive of occupational breach of trust or the establishment of the liability for such crime. However, in light of the time and circumstances of the mediation City/Do, the time of management insolvency or the pressure of the management of the union union, as well as the purpose of mediation is to avoid the burden of construction due to the prolongedness of the lawsuit or the continuous repeated dispute. Thus, the prosecutor's logic that the defendant had the motive for the above crime as alleged by the prosecutor, and therefore, the defendant can be recognized as the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust.

① With respect to the time of the public corporation’s attempt to mediate, the public corporation started to discuss the tax litigationT/F team at the public corporation’s tax litigation and started seeking ways other than the judgment on April 2004. At that time, the public corporation’s time started to make a report on its business to the defendant while using consultation or mediation in relation to the tax litigation at the tax planning team at the public corporation’s tax planning team at around June 2004 and the time when negotiation was actually established as a basic framework for the above provisional plan at that time, and the public corporation’s attempt to make a provisional plan to implement the matters decided at the tax litigationT/F team meeting at the public corporation’s meeting at the public corporation’s tax planning team at the public corporation’s tax planning team at around 204. As such, the public corporation’s attempt and its related process were much more than the labor-management agreement that was concluded on July 2, 2005.

② As regards the name of the City/Do in dispute resolution, even if the National Tax Service won the second meeting of the Tax LitigationT/F team held on April 23, 2004, the possibility of dispute with the National Tax Service still remains, so it is necessary to examine whether there is any part of dispute by negotiation." In the response to the request of the Board of Directors (Investigation Records No. 2361) prepared by the Tax Planning Team on February 24, 2005, it is sufficiently aware that the Corporation has a significant negative impact on the financial affairs of the Corporation as the lawsuits are prolonged, and it is reasonable to view that the Corporation's response to the purport that "The reason why the Corporation attempted to coordinate with the tax authority can not be established by a judgment, and even if winning the case in question, it is because it continues to impose a continuous burden on the Corporation without closing the dispute."

(7) Whether the mediation plan lacks rationality

A prosecutor asserts to the effect that the Defendant promoted the instant conciliation for private interest and received the conciliation proposal disadvantageous to the construction side. However, as seen below, the prosecutor does not present its contents regarding what is the most reasonable conciliation proposal. Rather, from the construction perspective, the public prosecutor conducted a consultation with the tax authorities, such as consultation with the tax authorities, questioning with the tax authorities, etc. for a long period of time, and prepared the conciliation proposal through internal review for more than one year and the request for consultation with the external legal specialized agencies. As a result, the public prosecutor cannot be deemed to lack rationality in the instant conciliation proposal, considering the fact that there is no evidence to conclude that the content of the instant conciliation proposal clearly contains unreasonable parts.

① During the tax litigation process, L attorneys asserted that there is no project cost corresponding to the revenues of the corporation, and that all the personal and physical expenses and expenses of the corporation should be deducted from the advertising fee revenue, which is a profit-making business transaction of the corporation. However, each judgment of the first instance court in the tax litigation did not accept this assertion at all, and in light of the aspects that the principle of substantial taxation and the reasonable response to the profit-making cost under the tax law, and the special characteristics of the legal nature of the corporation, the aforementioned assertion by L attorneys

② As a result, the substantial issue in tax litigation is how to calculate the deductible expenses in the case of corporate tax or how to divide the common input tax in the case of value-added tax. At least, the method of distributing the amount of revenue of profit-making business and non-profit business through the ratio of the amount of revenue of profit-making business and the amount

③ Technical issues related to the method of calculating common deductible expenses of the corporation are whether the method of calculating common deductible expenses of the corporation is to apply the method of calculating the amount of revenue or sales in proportion to the amount of individual deductible expenses pursuant to Article 76(6)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, as the same type of business is the same type of business as the receiving fee business and the advertising business of the corporation, or whether the method of calculating the amount of individual deductible expenses pursuant to Article 76(6)2 of the same Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act is to be applied. Accordingly, V accountants, etc. presented opinions to the Corporation to the effect that it is reasonable to regard the public broadcasting receiving fee business of the corporation as the same type of business and the type of commercial broadcast business of the corporation as the same type of business and to calculate the common deductible expenses. This is in conflict with the opinion of the prosecutor, which is the Korea Standard Industrial Classification

④ While considering that it is logical to calculate internal common deductible expenses according to the ratio of the revenue amount, the Corporation at the same time judged that it would have an effect of reducing corporate tax by about 70% if it is compared with the payment method of existing corporate tax, and this method as above was presented as corporate tax payment standard and reflected it in the conciliation proposal of this case.

(5) Regarding the criteria for imposing value-added tax according to the recommendation for adjustment, the prosecutor asserts that the method of calculating value-added tax applied by the Corporation since 2001, i.e., the method of calculating value-added tax by deducting all input tax amounts, which the Corporation has applied, is more unfavorable than the method of calculating the value-added tax, but such existing method of calculating the corporation may be deducted as input tax unless the tax amount for the supply of goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act does not constitute an exception

6) Around May 2005, the Defendant received a report from a person who became the head of the new tax planning team to the effect that the tax reduction effect of the portion of corporate tax may be offset in addition to the corporate tax unless the value-added tax can be settled at the same time. As a result, the Corporation adjusted the case of corporate tax and value-added

7. In the facts charged of this case, the prosecutor has to faithfully carry out the tax litigation whose winning is clearly determined solely for the benefit of the Corporation as the president of the Corporation. In addition, even if the tax litigation is to be concluded through mediation with the National Tax Service, a thorough examination of the possibility of winning the tax litigation of the Corporation, possibility of re-assessment of taxes due to estimated investigations, rationality and validity of mediation proposals, etc., and it is reasonable to request a specialized law firm, tax accounting firm, etc. to examine and coordinate the above matters, and, if so, there is an occupational duty to preserve the property interest of the Corporation by selecting the most favorable and reasonable mediation proposals in favor of the Corporation, even though it is argued to the purport that "the most favorable and reasonable mediation proposals are to be prepared by the Corporation," and it is difficult for the public prosecutor to present the proposal to the effect that "the most favorable and reasonable mediation proposals are to be prepared by the Corporation in favor of the counsel on October 2, 2008," and it is difficult for the public prosecutor to present the result of the most favorable opinion of the Corporation in the process of litigation.

8) In addition, the prosecutor argues to the effect that the Defendant incurred damage to the Corporation by waiving the refund of corporate tax, etc. voluntarily reported and paid through the instant conciliation. However, from the position of the public official in charge of the tax authority, it is difficult for the tax authority to conduct conciliation in itself because it is not subject to consideration to the extent that it does not make a report to the upper part on the ground of the liability problem, etc. In the case of a proposal for refunding corporate tax, etc. voluntarily reported and paid, and it is difficult for the tax authority to conduct conciliation. On the other hand, by mutual agreement between the Corporation and the customs office to divide common deductible expenses according to the taxation standard after the adjustment, namely, the amount of revenue after the adjustment, it may be deemed that the Corporation and the tax office have adopted a favorable method for the Corporation in future tax payment, and from the point of view of the Corporation, it is anticipated that the benefits from the corporate tax, etc. that

① Even while the instant tax lawsuit is pending, the tax authority imposed corporate tax, etc. according to its own standard, thereby increasing the burden of financing the Corporation accordingly, and thus, it was necessary to resolve the issue of tax lawsuit early.

(8) efforts to make a multilateral review of the termination through the conciliation of the tax action.

As examined below, the process of presenting and accepting the instant proposal by the Corporation can only be deemed to have been conducted by the Corporation through a large number of review and consultation inside and outside of the Republic of Korea, and it is difficult to say that it is a mere decision made by the single defendant.

① After being appointed to the president of the Corporation, the Defendant formed a tax litigation T/F team on December 11, 2003 and held meetings several times to effectively perform the tax litigation affairs in which AC had been in charge of divorce. On May 6, 2004, the Defendant extended and revised tax litigation districts to five persons, including in-house P and in-house certified public accountants, M, BR, and 0, including in-house P and in-house certified public accountants, thereby responding to tax litigation.

② The Defendant sought advice from an external specialized institution, such as AZ and AW, and received an internal audit in accordance with the internal regulations, and filed a report on it to the board of directors of the Corporation on several occasions, and finally, decided whether to accept the recommendation of the court through the management conference. In addition, the construction audit team requested a legal review on AX and AY law firms in addition to its own audit with respect to the completion of tax litigation conciliation. Accordingly, it can be said that the Corporation has collected diverse opinions through the internal organization of the Corporation and requested an external specialized institution to provide advice, and completed the procedure for audits, etc. under the bylaws until it decided whether to accept the final proposal of conciliation, and that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have determined the final proposal of conciliation by itself.

③ Although there was no direct question about the possibility of winning a tax lawsuit and the possibility of re-assessment by the method of estimated investigation with respect to the case accounting information and law firm AW whose advice was requested by the tax planning team, in light of the above question, there was an inquiry and determination on whether there was a legal assertion by the attorney in the part of the construction works in the tax lawsuit, the possibility of winning the tax lawsuit and the possibility of estimated investigation with respect to the possibility of winning the tax lawsuit had already been discussed inside the construction works, and the judgment of the first instance court which the construction works won in the tax lawsuit clearly stated that it should be taxed by the method of estimated investigation in its reasoning, and the fact that the request and reply by the audit team with respect to the law firm AX and AY of the audit team are mentioned in the possibility of winning the tax lawsuit and the possibility of re-assessment by the method of estimated investigation, it cannot be concluded that it did not make every effort to conclude that the method of conclusion through

(9) Opinions of experts on proposals for conciliation

As seen below, the Corporation may be deemed to have sought sufficient advice from legal experts, accounting experts, etc. until it finally accepts the recommendation of mediation by the court. The purpose of each advice was to have been positive or neutral position at least in the termination of tax litigation through mediation.

① Under AW, a law firm that requested consultation from the tax planning team upon the direction of the defendant, it is difficult to recognize the validity of the claim that the collection of receiving fees from the Corporation would be impossible when the case is terminated due to mediation or the assertion or mediation that it is unnecessary to terminate the case, or that it would not have any particular meaning, and the position of the Corporation would have been the most appropriate decision for the prompt and reasonable settlement of the dispute in the absence of conviction as to the possibility of winning the lawsuit as well as the possibility of final winning the lawsuit and the possibility of final winning the lawsuit in the case where the case is winning." In AX law firm and AY law firm that requested consultation from the audit team of the Corporation, the acceptance of the mediation recommendation has advantages and disadvantages in the acceptance of the mediation recommendation, and finally, the issue of acceptance of the mediation recommendation is expected to be difficult to be accepted in the policy decision of the management, and it is possible to impose the amount imposed on the Corporation as estimated for a long period of time as compared to the final demand of the tax authority for the amount of corporate tax and value-added tax to be collected each year.

② In conclusion, it is doubtful that the AJ legal office AJ attorney-at-law mediation recommendations made by the tax authorities, a representative of the BW legal office, will take into account the prospects for the future litigation, the details of the mediation proposal into account the position of the tax authorities and the position of the public corporation, reflecting realistic taxation conditions. If the agreement is not reached, it is doubtful that the amount of input tax would be excessively deducted before the business year 2001. However, considering that the effect of non-deduction of the input tax amount related to the taxable business is offset and the effect of reduction of the 12 billion won tax amount is reduced, the court's recommendation was presented to the effect that it is reasonable to take into account the position of both parties.

(10) Graduated response and review relating to the defendant's holding office

The Corporation cannot be deemed to have been solely related to the Defendant, the president of the Corporation, and the Corporation’s labor union, around the time of accepting the instant conciliation proposal. However, as seen below, it cannot be readily concluded that the Trade Union and Labor union had been trying to achieve the Defendant’s retirement without fail, and that the Defendant was unreasonably pushing ahead with the conciliation to solely pursue private interests, such as the Defendant’s holding office as the president.

① In relation to the aggravation of the finance of the public corporation and the entry of the enemy in the 2004 fiscal year, it is difficult to deny that the circumstance that the Defendant and other management conduct a secret management may be one of the causes. However, on the other hand, it is also difficult to deny the structural circumstances such as the reduction of market share of the public wave broadcasting, the increase of digital conversion cost of broadcasting facilities, and the increase of broadcast production costs.

② At the time, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment argued to the effect that it shall be held liable even for the minimum number of executives, asserting the resignation of the officers responsible for the hostile management in 2004. It may be deemed that the request for censure of a certain number of officers, not for the resignation of the Defendant or the entire management, by holding the responsible for the hostile management. In other words, on June 15, 2005, the board of directors of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment does not require that Q should necessarily leave the president. Only the number of responsible persons should be the minimum number of resignations. In addition, on July 22, 2005, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment prepared separate sections from the agreement for public disclosure, and the two agreements are contradictory to the phrase "responsibility of the most sensitive management", and the defendant seems to have been liable for the portion of the above agreement within 40 years, which is the first quarter of the public announcement.

(3) Even if the defendant maintains the status as the president of the Corporation by improving the management performance of the Corporation, it shall be the natural duty of the president of the Corporation to transfer the financial status and management status of the Corporation, and as long as the defendant cannot be deemed to have terminated the tax lawsuit in this case by unfairly or unreasonable adjustment, it shall not be interpreted that the resolution of the management deficit is the creation of private interest.

D. Sub-committee

The facts charged of this case are as follows: (a) although the defendant was certain to win the above tax lawsuit under the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust; (b) at least about KRW 244.8 billion (including interest on refund), the winning price of the first instance court, could have been refunded; and (c) by withdrawing the tax lawsuit, it would have obtained the profits equivalent to the difference of KRW 189.2 billion from the State, and caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the Corporation; and (d) as long as each circumstance was examined in relation to whether the defendant had motive or criminal intent to commit occupational breach of trust during the conciliation process, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor as seen earlier alone was insufficient to deem that there was an intention to commit occupational breach of trust in the process of closing the tax lawsuit in the form of the court conciliation.

5. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is decided to pronounce innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of judgment pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal

The judges of the presiding judge;

For judge funeral

Judge Choi Jin-jin

1) With respect to national taxes, such as corporate tax, a subject of various tax investigations, taxation, etc. is the head of the competent tax office or the head of the competent regional tax office, etc.; hereinafter referred to as "tax office", except where it is necessary to divide it.

2) However, in the case of corporate tax for each business year of 2003 and 2004, it was not subject to the instant tax lawsuit, and it was not separately stated in attached Form 4.

3) Until now, the Value-Added Tax-Related Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate 'broadcasting under Broadcasting Act' as tax-free objects.

4) Upon the Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 Decided February 25, 2000, the Corporation sought the validity of the recommendation for amendment of tax laws and regulations from L lawyers (the investigative record 531 pages 531) and recommended the Ministry of Finance and Economy to revise tax laws and regulations (the investigative record 5326 pages) on December 7, 200, and accordingly, Article 32(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is the broadcast and relay broadcast under the Broadcasting Act."

5) In this regard, the Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out that it is improper that the ‘Corporation’ at the end of 2003 deducts the total input tax amount of value-added tax (the investigation record 3194, questionnaire and written comments).

6) On September 25, 1993, the labor union of the public corporation, which had the inspection of the state of the state of the government in 1993, has been a head officer of the Kladlesian on September 25, 1993, criticized that the dynamic response of the private side is the fundamental cause (No. 1 of the submission of counsel). This content has been controversial in the inspection of the state on September 10, 1993.

7) The Corporation sought the return of approximately KRW 1 billion of resident tax to be imposed on Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but the same legal doctrine as the corporate tax law applied to the State is also applicable to Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the charges of this case also provided the State interest. Thus, the lawsuit against Seoul Special Metropolitan City is not separately mentioned in the lawsuit against the State, except in special circumstances.

8) The appellate court excluded the portion of the special surtax and sought a return of approximately KRW 28.4 billion by reducing the purport of the claim.

9) The first instance court and the lower court each rendered judgment on August 14, 1997 and the Seoul High Court Decision 94Da97445 delivered on August 14, 1997 and the Seoul High Court Decision 97Na43552 delivered on August 21, 1998

10) In the case of the 1998 business year, corporate tax was not paid by the enemy.

11) L lawyer present himself as a witness of this law and presented that he will run only the advertisement business which is a taxable business in the Supreme Court Decision 98Da47184 Decided December 21, 1995, and the Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu1449 Decided December 21, 1995 stated that L lawyer's input tax amount which is not deducted under Article 17 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be deducted under Article 17 (1) of the same Act except as otherwise stated in the above provision, and that it is natural in the principle of no taxation without law that the deduction cannot be denied without such special provision.

12) In the case of Nos. 17, the Corporation won the entire amount in the first instance trial, and the tax authority corrected the final tax disposition on June 30, 2006, which was after the decision was rendered by the first instance court. Accordingly, the Corporation has also won the lawsuit in 419,609,173 by reducing the purport of the claim in the appellate trial. Of them, the Corporation won 366,748,445 won among them, and the same was determined in the final appeal.

13) The head of the BH policy planning center as the chairperson, and the head of the BH policy planning team as the executive secretary. The committee members consist of BI Policy Week, BJ publicity Week, BK news gathering 1 Week, BL Formation Policy Division Week, AS Law Planning Division Week, BM Budget Planning Division Week, BN Accounting/Tax Affairs Bureau Week, BO Accounting/Tax Affairs Bureau, AC Tax Litigation Division, AC Tax Litigation Division staff, BP Budget Division staff, BP National Tax Service Accesser, and L lawyer (requesting attendance, where necessary).

14) An interview with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service was held three times on March 4, 2004, on March 9, 2004, and on the 18th of the same month (the investigative record 2255 pages).

15) L attorney-at-law voluntarily reported the reason why the corporation did not keep separate accounting by attending this court as a witness, and it is practically impossible to do so at the time of the old date when there was a separate accounting talk. This is because the channel is 2 and the general broadcast and the advertisement broadcast is viewed as it is conceptually, and even though K is well known, it does not have several broadcasting stations, but only one broadcasting station is different, and it is still one and only one corporation is bound by the Imana, and only one channel is bound by the Imana and the Broadcasting Act is commercial advertisement, and it is also a commercial advertisement in the Supreme Court decision, and it is not possible to divide the amount of the advertisement into two channels, and there is no difference in the concept of the separate accounting recommendation.

16) The relevant evidence is as follows.

The witness 0's statement: The tax litigation team presented 'provisional (2281 pages) dividing the total expenses from advertising revenues and receiving fees to the working-level officers of the tax authorities'. The provisional (provisional) presented 'one tax payment standard', and the provisional (provisional) presented 'provisional (2281 pages)', and the above provisional (provisional) did not specifically demand tax refund from 1993 to 2003, there was about 70% tax reduction effect (98.4 billion won in amount) when compared with the method of calculating the amount of tax already paid from 1993 to 2003. In addition, the tax office's working-level officer also thought that it was reasonable in terms of dividing the total expenses into profit-making expenses for the provisional (provisional) and that there was a considerable amount of 00 billion won to be refunded from May 2003 to December 2, 2004 to 19.3 billion won in its initial statement and statement (2005 billion won in its initial statement).

17) In the case of the [Attachment 1] No. 3, the Corporation won the case in the first instance judgment, but the judgment in the second instance sentenced on April 22, 2004 ruled against the Corporation (Dismissal).

18) M argues that this document was delivered to L around October 2004, however, L is asserting that it was delivered to L on March 2005 to the middle or lower patrolmen (see, e.g., the legal statement in each court).

19) L attorney-at-law is bound to attend this court as a witness and to make an estimated tax account book for reasons for which the Corporation cannot conduct an estimated tax investigation, but only if the account book is not made or some of the account books are omitted, it can not be made in the way of estimated tax without any possibility of calculating the tax amount. In the case of K, it is difficult in reality to make the estimated tax with the account book in reality. Even if it is the estimated tax, there are two separate accounts for K as estimation tax, and it is difficult for K to make the estimated tax base rate and its partner rights. If there is no notice of the income standard rate in the National Tax Service until now for the advertising business, it is difficult to obtain the estimated tax by the income standard rate. The remaining method is a partner's right, but it is difficult to compare it with the business owner's right at the time of the Supreme Court's decision, and it is also difficult to say that it is a non-profit corporation for the Corporation's own business size or size, which is the only type of business of MBB and its size.

20) The same content as a summary of the proposed agreement of the tax office sent to Lat-Law

21) As to the reasons for asserting that the O shall attend this court as a witness and simultaneously resolve the corporate tax and value-added tax, the M team leader at the time of "the corporate tax is collected every year, so it would be better to first resolve the problem. However, the Supreme Court stated to the effect that it was unlawful to divide the total input tax into the revenue ratio, but if it is divided into the corporate tax in proportion to the income ratio, the value-added tax would have a high possibility that the corporate tax and value-added tax will be settled at the same time."

22) see the witness 0 and L’s each legal statement. In particular, I sent the mail stating that the witness would hold an interview and immediately file an application for the conciliation. The intention of L’s L’s lawyer was clearly confirmed on that day. Before that time, I would like to say that L’s lawyer would not be able to stop the later re-disposition of L’s tax office's later disposition, and I would like to think that the meaning of our favor and the meaning of the winning of L’s think is different, and therefore I would like to find that L’s argument that if you would not have deducted all expenses from the revenue of advertisement except for the revenue, I would like to have the tax base paid in the future, and that it would not be possible for L’s lawyer to have the same content as L’s statement to the effect that the tax office would not be able to promptly accept the request for conciliation after the lapse of the tax base.

23) The amount of KRW 15.9 billion for the year 196 and additional dues to refund 2.9 billion + the amount of KRW 23.3 billion for the year 197 and additional dues to refund 1.6 billion for the year 1997 + the amount of KRW 6.7 billion for the year 1998 and additional dues to refund 200 million for the refund (each calculation of additional dues based on the amount of refund and refund)

24) From September 2005 to January 2006, BT, who had worked as the legal branch of the Seoul Regional Tax Office 1 and first degree, should be imposed within one year if it was judged to be a failed judgment, and even though it is difficult to determine a new tax amount by means of an additional investigation method, it would have made a new tax disposition even if it was mobilized by a certain method by the tax authority (the investigation record No. 1611), from May 2003 to December 2004, N service as the legal branch of the Seoul Regional Tax Office 1, from July 2005 to June 2006, 2005, and R& 2, working as the legal branch of the Seoul Regional Tax Office 2, and from that time, from this court testimony to the purport that each public official of the Seoul Regional Tax Office 2, who actually lost the tax imposition lawsuit, it would cause another issue to the effect that it would cause another issue.

25) AC appeared as a witness in this Court and stated in this Court that “I would like to know to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service that I would not know that I would like to say that I would have "I would know to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (I would like to know to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service)" if I would like to be a big day in the future.

26) At the time of conciliation by the National Tax Service, the portion of value-added tax at the time of the conciliation procedure changed and the recommendation for the adjustment of value-added tax was sent later. In particular, the recommendation for the adjustment of value-added tax is an input tax amount generated from the department operating for the collection of receiving fees for the construction project in principle (in principle, an input tax amount irrelevant to a taxation project shall be an input tax amount derived from the department operating for the collection of receiving fees for the construction project) rather unfavorable to the construction than the original construction (in principle, an input tax amount irrelevant to a taxation project shall be an input tax amount arising from the department operating for the collection of receiving fees for the construction project). The calculation of the tax amount, when the total tax amount can be refunded to the Corporation from January 1, 1996 to February 205, the refund amount

27) 4800 pages of investigation records: Provided, however, according to 2575 pages of investigation records, the date of preparation of internal documents of tax-related outside law firm (AW) advice prepared by the tax planning project team is 2005,9 November 9, 199

28) According to the Regulations on Audit and Inspection Duties of the Corporation (AL), where a lawsuit amounting to 100 million won or more is terminated, it shall be subject to a daily audit. At the time, AL, which was the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Corporation, is not a data that can be seen as a result of the daily audit from the prosecutor’s investigation as internal data of the audit team. In addition, the audit team three of the method that the audit team presents the audit results to the executing department (when there is a problem), opinions and opinions (when there is a problem), and did not present any opinion on the case of tax adjustment. In addition, the audit team did not submit a written review by deeming that the management should determine whether to accept the adjustment due to the nature of the case, the review report was not submitted to the management meeting, and it was stated to the effect that the auditor’s written review opinion was not provided to the law firm planning team at the actual level (Article 5076). However, as seen below, it was reported to the Defendant, the president, as the president.

29) AJ attorney-at-law refers to the following outlines from a written statement (in the face of 1731 of investigation records) prepared on June 9, 2008 and submitted to the prosecution by him/her.

① The issue of corporate tax litigation is whether the corporation's business can be divided into profit-making business and non-profit business, and if possible, it should be done according to any standard. In relation to the calculation of the tax base, the Corporation has an opinion that it should exclude and calculate the total amount of losses from advertising income other than receiving fees. The tax authority has the opinion that the tax authority should divide the business into profit-making business into profit-making business and calculate the amount of losses and expenses related

(2) The issues of value-added tax lawsuits are similar to corporate tax, and the Corporation has the position that all input tax amounts should be deducted, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act, and the tax authority cannot deduct the input tax amount related to the (public) broadcasting business as the input tax amount for the (public) broadcasting business, which is a taxable business.

(3) Summary of corporate tax judgment.

- The position of the tax authorities is as follows.

- However, the tax authorities did not regard only 2TV and 2 radio as profit-making business.

- The Corporation does not perform its duty of separate accounting by preparing the cost report. The assessment of the tax base is bound by the method of estimated assessment. In this case, it must be cancelled in its entirety because it cannot calculate the legitimate tax amount.

-in fact, the country has lost formally but it was judged that it can be taxed by the method of estimated investigation. In case of estimated taxation, the tax amount will increase more in case of taxation based on books.

(4) Summary of judgment of value-added tax

-the input tax amount deductible from the output tax amount of taxable businesses is limited to the taxable business (advertisement business).

- However, the tax authorities are wrong to regard only the input tax amount for 2TV and 2 radio operations as the input tax amount required for the advertising business.

- Since it is impossible to specify and calculate the input tax amount related to the advertising business, it is inevitable to do so by the estimation method. In this case, the whole tax amount should be revoked because it is impossible to calculate the legitimate tax amount.

(5) The process of preparing the written opinion: On November 14, 2005, at the request of the tax authority for a written opinion, the preparation of the written opinion on November 14, 2005, and no consultation has been made with the Corporation prior to the preparation of the written opinion.

(6) A court's recommendation for mediation.

- Corporate tax: The amount of 45.9 billion additional investigation and notification out of the total amount of 165.3 billion won shall be revoked, and the amount payable during the period of the construction shall be withdrawn, and thereafter the return shall be paid in accordance with the inquiry.

- Value-added tax shall be withdrawn in all lawsuits related to filing an application for rectification. In relation to the method of tax payment after adjustment, only two input tax amounts unrelated to the taxable business under Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and the input tax amounts generated by the department operating for the collection of receiving fees, from January 1, 1996 to February 2005.

(7) Other

- The content that "in calculating the income of the advertising business, the amount disbursed for the non-profit business out of the advertising revenue shall be deemed not to exist. All the expenses for the broadcasting business shall be deemed to have been appropriated as the receiving fee."

- If a rejection disposition of a request for reduction is revoked, the tax authorities should re-examine the request for correction, which may re-calculated the amount of tax, refund the amount of tax, and reject the request again.

-The estimation method: based on the standard income ratio of the relevant type of business set by the National Tax Service (for example, by multiplying the advertising revenue by the standard income ratio of the advertising business set by the National Tax Service).

30) As to the above management innovation proposal, labor union labor union and management promotion movement and enforcement dump 4278. However, since the management of the public corporation did not conduct wage reduction and structural creation as announced in the management innovation proposal, in particular, wages cannot be reduced unilaterally by the management who is defined as the matters of labor-management consultation pursuant to the labor-management consultation agreement between labor and management (in the case of wages, No. 4279). Meanwhile, W of the president of the public corporation at the time of the investigation of the public prosecutor's office, "W of the public corporation's vice president in the above management innovation increased the amount of wages by 100 to 200 billion won, it was pointed out that the amount of wages would have increased by 4% even after the hostile management in 204, it was 100 K's first 200 program of the public prosecutor's license at the time of the public prosecutor's investigation to the effect that it was 100 K's first 28.

31) The facts charged are as follows: "The non-Confidence proposal at the time of the ballot counting is expected to be resolved with the pressure support of the union members." Qua, the chairman of the union, was present at this court as a witness and stated for the same purpose. However, according to the special Kninan Grade 16 (Issuance on June 13, 2005, submission of a counsel, etc.) of the defendant's management innovation proposal as of June 1, 2005, the survey was conducted on the members of the union on the defendant's management innovation proposal as of June 1, 2005, the consent of 31.9% for the management innovation proposal, 45.4% for the retirement of the president, and 85.9% for the retirement of the president, and if it appears that the management is responsible, the consent of the reduction of wages or the reduction of wages has been obtained."

32) Otherwise, in the case of 2006, KRW 67.5 billion from advertising fees, KRW 530.4 billion from receiving fees, KRW 24.1 billion from net income, KRW 5,93.1 billion from advertising fees in the case of 2007, KRW 5,93.1 billion from receiving fees, KRW 537.1 billion from receiving fees, and KRW 27.8 billion from net loss in the current period (in investigation records, page 3146-4).

33) Seoul Central District Court 2005dan3539 (Dismissal of Request), Seoul High Court 2006Na103531 (Partial Quotation), Supreme Court 2007Da81032 (Reversal and Forwarding), Seoul High Court 2008Na44186 (Dismissal of Appeal), Supreme Court 2008Da64447 (Dismissal of Appeal).

34) However, in the case of the [Attachment 1] 3 and 4, the final appeal was initiated even in the case of each of the above lawsuits, and in the case of the case of the No. 3 of the grounds that there is no interest in legal proceedings by filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition revoking an increase in the number of business years after the construction works, the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the lawsuit on July 9, 2004, the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the lawsuit on October 14, 2005, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on April 22, 2004, and in the case of the No. 4,

35) L attorney-at-law also has the same concern. In other words, in the opinion of the appellate court's ruling of unjust enrichment lawsuit (Evidence No. 4) around August 1998, the above attorney-at-law predicted that "it may not be ruled out that the amount of future corporate tax, etc. would be increased even though it is excluded from receiving fees, as the case may be, even though it is excluded from receiving fees." On May 12, 2004, when the logic of the National Tax Service was accepted in relation to the separate accounting in the fourth session of the tax litigationT/F team, the BN settlement/tax office's share will be higher than the SBS or MBC which is the commercial broadcasting. It is necessary to emphasize that the separate accounting can be made through the cost report is unreasonable in the National Tax Service's argument."

36) The remaining two lawsuits were No. 1 No. 3 and No. 4, and as seen earlier, the Supreme Court's final dismissal decision was finalized, and the Supreme Court's judgment that held in favor of the Corporation did not deny the possibility of taxation by the estimation and investigation method.

37) In particular, the judgment of the first instance court of [Attachment 1] 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 17 concluded that even if a taxpayer did not prepare a book as prescribed by the tax law, if the taxpayer can calculate the tax base based on other evidential documents, the taxpayer may not determine the tax base and the tax amount by the method of estimated investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 1999) explicitly cited the precedents that “if the taxpayer could calculate the tax base based on other evidential documents, the taxpayer may not determine the tax base and the tax amount by the method of estimated investigation.

38) According to Article 25(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 199), where a non-profit corporation accounts separately for profit-making and other businesses, if the profit-making businesses and other businesses are different, the common deductible expenses shall be calculated in proportion to the individual deductible expenses of the advertisement business and other businesses. Thus, in this case, it can be deemed that it is not unreasonable to calculate the common deductible expenses in proportion to the individual deductible expenses of the broadcasting business, which is the individual deductible expenses of the advertisement business, and the collection expenses of the receiving fees (or two channels), which is the non-profit business (or two channels). However, the common deductible expenses method in accordance with the above criteria is not only the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Korea Electric Power Corporation, but also the amount paid by the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which is the total cost-related expenses paid by the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.