In the event that the amount distributed as part of the residual property has been accounted as short-term loans, it is difficult to regard it as the outflow.

It is highly difficult to see that the company has distributed real estate equivalent to the amount invested as part of the residual property after completion of the collective housing project as part of the liquidation procedure, so it is difficult to see short-term loans as outflow outside the company.

Article 67 【Disposition of Income】

2013Guhap2116 Revocation of imposition of income tax

AA

○○ Head of tax office

September 4, 2014

February 12, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 492,123,730 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff is serving as the auditor of △△△ Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") who conducts housing construction business from around 1005.

B. On December 20, 2007, the non-party company completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on the ground of sale on May 10, 2005 with respect to 7 lots of land and buildings on ○○○○○○-dong 000 square meters, and 00 square meters of land and buildings thereon (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), and recorded 813,030,523 of the book value of the real estate of this case as short-term loans to the plaintiff.

C. On September 28, 2009, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income by disposing of KRW 886,203,270, including the book value of the instant real estate and the amount of interest recognized, as bonus, and notified the Plaintiff of change in the amount of income. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant included the amount of KRW 886,203,270 in the amount of the above recognized bonus in the Plaintiff’s global income, and issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 492,123,730, global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 2, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 12, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 13, 15 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, together with BB and CCC, was awarded a successful bid with 150 million won in total with the cost of demolition of unregistered buildings on the land of this case, including the real estate of this case under the name of DDD industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DDD industry"). After purchasing the real estate of this case from DD industry of this case, the non-party company agreed to return the total amount of KRW 650 million between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and the land of this case and the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case only ○○-dong land of this case"). The plaintiff's land of this case should be combined with the land of this case and the building of this case. The plaintiff's disposal of the real estate of this case should be revoked in accordance with the agreement of this case, since the non-party company purchased the real estate of this case from the DD industry of this case and the plaintiff's disposal of other real estate of this case should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Facts of recognition

1) The EE, the former owner of the instant real estate, was in a situation where: (a) the △△△△ Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△△△”); (b) was created a collateral security on the instant real estate in the future; and (c) was unable to repay the loan several times; and (d) the Plaintiff agreed to deposit KRW 700 million with the △△△△△ Financial Co., Ltd. in order to guarantee the implementation of the collateral security right on the said real estate when the △△△ Financial Co., Ltd. filed a request for auction to exercise the security right on the said real estate,

2) The Plaintiff, along with BB and CCC (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) whose representative director of the DD industry, agreed to contribute money to each of the instant real estate to be awarded a successful bid under the name of DD industry. On the other hand, on October 6, 2002, CCC provided 1 billion won investment, established the right to collateral security on the said real estate, and recognized the Plaintiff’s right to KRW 500 million out of the amount of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the said real estate. In return, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer 45,000 capital of FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF to the CCC. On the other hand, the FFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFF shares were listed on April 28, 2004 on the date of listing 105.

3) The Plaintiff, etc. deposited KRW 700 million with the auction performance bond at △△△△ Finance with the money contributed by BB, KRW 1 billion contributed by CCC, and the △△△ Finance received a successful bid of the above real estate in the process of making a request for auction to exercise the security right on the instant ○○dong real estate. The insufficient money paid the successful bid price, etc. with the money loaned by △△ Agricultural Cooperative as the debtor on the security of the said real estate. On June 24, 2003, the Plaintiff, etc. completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate in the future of the DD industry. On June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff, etc. completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1 billion, the debtor DD industry, and the creditor CCC as the creditor CCC.

4) The Plaintiff, etc. decided to sell the above real estate to GG and HH 4.5 billion won in the real estate of this case. GG and HH established the non-party company that implemented the apartment house business on August 1, 2003, together with the Plaintiff. GG and HH paid part of the sales price after the Plaintiff was appointed as the joint representative director. BB and CCC recovered their contributed money from the sales price. On February 18, 2004, BB and CCC completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate in the future of the non-party company, and cancelled the registration of ownership transfer, and changed the debtor to the Plaintiff of the ○○ District Court completed on June 24, 2003 as the debtor.

5) During the process of running a collective housing business on the instant land of ○○dong, the Plaintiff spent the total of KRW 150 million for the removal cost of the unregistered building on the ground.

6) On March 2005, the Plaintiff made an agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “the agreement of March 2005”).

7) On May 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed the following contents between the non-party company and the non-party company (hereinafter “the confirmation of May 2005”).

8) On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an settlement agreement with GG and HH, a joint representative of the non-party company, as follows (hereinafter “Settlement Agreement”).

9) The non-party company completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant ○○dong land including the instant real estate, which was a multi-family housing business site in 2004 and 2005, based on trust in III Co., Ltd. Around December 13, 2007, the completion of a multi-family housing business, and at the same time, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate excluded from a multi-family housing business among the instant real estate ○dong real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 10, 2007, on December 20, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, 10, 11, 13-21, 23; Eul evidence Nos. 7; witness ○○○○’s testimony; the court’s inquiry into the FFFFFFFF corporation; the purport of the entire pleadings;

D. Determination

1) Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9463 of Jun. 9, 2009) provides that in filing a report on the corporate tax base on income for each business year, or determining or revising the corporate tax base, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reservation, etc. to the person to whom it belongs as prescribed by Presidential Decree

2) In this case, the following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s above facts, namely, ① the Plaintiff, etc., at the time of winning the auction of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to CCC, and the Plaintiff calculated and transferred 45,000 billion won per share of the FF shares, which were 50 million won per common investors. The above shares were listed after the listing of 14,600 won on the date of listing, and the stock price was 657,00,000 won (45,000 x 14,600 won x 14,000 won) to the Plaintiff at the same time, and it appears that the Plaintiff would not have made an investment more than 50,00 won in the process of acquiring the instant real estate at the time of the instant short-term loan. The Plaintiff appears to have been able to have made an investment in the instant real estate at the time of distributing the real estate to the Plaintiff as part of the sale of the instant real estate by Nonparty 2’s investment in the instant real estate.

3) Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant disposed of the instant real estate as a bonus under the premise that the Defendant lent the amount equivalent to the book value of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the instant disposition was made. The Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and it is decided as per the Disposition.