Cho High-2014-Seoul Government-036 ( July 23, 2014)

Since the OTC and ELW transactions are substantially one, the losses of the first ELW transactions must be recognized at the maturity of the OTC.

ELW and OTC transactions are for compensating for losses incurred when LP initially sells ELW, and since the OTC and ELW transactions are substantially one, it must be recognized at the time of the initial maturity of the OTRW transactions.

Article 4 of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap7012 ( October 7, 2015)

OOOOOOO

The director of the tax office

September 23, 2015

October 7, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2008 against the Plaintiff is revoked. The disposition of imposing corporate tax for the Plaintiff, OOO, OO, OO, OO, under-reported additional taxO, OO, OO, OO, O, O,O, and additional taxO, O, O,O,O, and OO, as well as the tax for insincereful payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is a foreign securities company that operates a securities business in Singapore with the applicable law of Singapore. A.O. branch office in Korea is established in the form of a branch office in 200O.O.O., and engages in the trade or consignment sale and purchase of securities, futures, options, etc., and the present business office is in OO as of Seoul OO.

(b) stock warranty securities and liquidity suppliers;

1) Stocks warrantyed (Equiined Want, ELW)

(2) The term "securities" means securities issued in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20974, Jul. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20974); (3) under Article 2-3 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20974), which indicate the right to trade stocks or receive money in accordance with the predetermined method in connection with changes in the price of specific stocks traded on the securities market, the KOSDAQ, or a foreign market similar thereto (hereinafter referred to as "basic assets") or the price of stocks or the price index (hereinafter referred to as "securities indicating the right to trade stocks or the price index") or the right to trade stocks or the price of securities depository receipts in a foreign securities market, which is indicated in connection with the change in the securities market or the price of securities depository receipts in a foreign securities market or in a prior manner prescribed by Article 125 (2) 6 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

(ii) liquidity suppliers (Liquitable, LP);

Article 41-2(1) of the Securities Market Listing Regulations (amended by Act No. 400 of Jan. 28, 2009) stipulates the requirements for a new listing examination of ELW, and Article 41-2(1)6 of the same Act requires that the issuer enter into a liquidity supply contract including the contents under Articles 20-4 and 20-5 of the Business Regulations from among the liquidity suppliers. However, if the issuer who is a liquidity supplier directly provides liquidity, it is required to submit a plan for the supply of liquidity.

C. Status as the Plaintiff’s liquidity supplier and outline of transactions

1) The Plaintiff is a liquidity supplier of the ELW, and ① receives the ELW from investors after accepting the ELW from the ELW issuer and performing the ELW transaction between investors, and ② sells the ELW and the product content (basic assets, issue price, exercise price, maturity, etc.) to the ELW issuer and redeem it to the issuer at maturity.

2) The Plaintiff, upon issuance by an issuer which entered into a liquidity supply contract, sold the ELW to the securities market after acquiring all of them. Specifically, during the beginning of the first transaction day of the ELW, the Plaintiff supplied liquidity within a long-term transaction period by presenting the sale price offered and the purchase price offered again within the scope of the quantity sold.

(d) Accounting of the plaintiff who is a liquidity supplier.

1) Accounting for the business year to which the date of the first sale belongs;

From 2000O to deal with such transactions as acceptance and sale of over-the-counter derivatives, the Plaintiff acquired the ELW at the issue price and sold it at the market price for the first time to investors.

In the business year, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by subtracting the sale price from the acquisition price by the number of ELW sold was recognized as a loss and accounting was made.

(ii) accounting for the business year in which the due date of ELW arrives;

In the business year to which the date of maturity falls, the Plaintiff treated each account as losses for the business year to which the maturity belongs, multiplied by the number of over-the-counter derivatives owned by “the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of the exercise of rights from the acquisition price or the price of the re-purchase price of ELW” by the number of ELW owned by “the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of the exercise of rights from the purchase price or the price of the re-purchase price of ELW”.

E. The Defendant’s tax adjustment and the instant disposition

1) The Defendant, a liquidity supplier, performed the same role as the issuer of the ELW. The Plaintiff recognized the amount calculated according to the market price of the ELW only when the issuer issued the ELW and sold it to investors, and then purchased the ELW again after recognizing the amount as the debt, the difference between the market price and the market price at the time when recognizing the debt at the time of new purchase of the ELW is treated as the transaction loss of the ELW, and treat the difference between the market price and the market price at the time when recognizing the debt at the time of new purchase of the ELW as the loss of the ELW. However, in the Plaintiff’s first sale to investors, the difference between the acquisition price and the market price at the time of the first sale of the ELW was calculated as the loss for the pertinent business year, on the ground that it is improper, and if the Plaintiff did not recognize the loss at the time of initial sale to investors, it did not include the amount equivalent to the expenses of the ELW as the loss for the pertinent business year.

3) The instant disposition

A) In relation to the corporate tax for the business year 2008, the Defendant imposed corporate tax, OOO, OO, OO, OO, under-reported additional tax, OO, OO, OO, under-reported additional tax, OO, OO, O, O, O, and OO, under the method of calculating the tax rate by applying 25% to the corrected tax base after adding the initial amount of non-taxation to gross income and the issuing fees included in the deductible expenses as seen above to the Plaintiff, and then adjusted the tax base, after correcting the tax base.

B) The Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial seeking revocation of the above disposition. However, the Tax Tribunal calculated the number of days for failure to pay penalty taxes for failure to pay due O.O.O.O.O.O., and corrected the amount of penalty taxes for failure to pay due O.O.O., and the remainder of the petition for a trial was dismissed. According to the above decision, the Defendant refunded the amount of penalty taxes for failure to pay due (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") to O,OO,OO,OO,OOO,OOO(the amount of penalty taxes for failure to pay due as above, excluding those refunded in the above disposition of this case).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

A) Principle of confirmation of rights and obligations

According to Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act, the business year of accrual of earnings and losses for each business year of a corporation shall be the business year to which the date on which the relevant earnings and losses are determined belongs, and this shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a foreign corporation pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Corporate Tax Act. Since there is no possibility of realizing the portion formed regardless of the market price of the price at which the Plaintiff acquired ELW from the issuer, or it cannot be said that the profit and loss are considerably mature in the possibility of realizing the profit

B) Actual principle

(1) Although the Plaintiff is in the position of a liquidity supplier (LP), the Plaintiff has the same economic substance as the case where the issuer concurrently serves as a liquidity supplier. However, unlike the accounting accounts when the issuer concurrently serves as a liquidity supplier, the Plaintiff included the difference between the acquisition price and the market price in the first sale to investors as if the issuer incurred a large-scale loss by including the difference between the acquisition price and the market price in the deductible expenses for the pertinent business year. This is not only an inclusion of the acquisition price and the market price in the deductible expenses for the pertinent business year, but also an excessive inclusion of the profits and losses that have already existed or in excess of the profits and losses incurred during the pertinent business year. If the business year in which the ELW acquired and the maturity of the ELW differ, it is unreasonable to avoid taxation by strategic transactions in order to lower the income for a specific business year. Accordingly, as in the Plaintiff’s case, it is reasonable to deem that the issuer concurrently serves as a liquidity supplier, as in the case of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ELW and then sell it to investors.

(2) In particular, although the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ELW is bound to sell it to investors at the market price at a higher price regardless of its market price, it was accepted at a higher price regardless of its market price. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ELW from the issuer at a high price that is not feasible is a virtual loss, and thus, it should be denied under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(3) Even if the instant disposition is not justified in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation as prescribed by Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff obtained the benefit of time value for one year in advance of the time when the ELW disposition loss reverts to one year, and furthermore, it is legitimate to make the instant disposition in accordance with Article 14(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as it unfairly gains benefits from the reduction of corporate tax already reported through the media. In fact, the maximum corporate tax rate was 25% in the business year of 2008 and 20% in the business year of 2010, and since the market of ELW growth from 209 to 23,569 in the business year of 201, the number of new stocks issued in 201 to 23,569 in the average daily amount and 28,750,000 won in the average daily amount.

2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

① There is no legal basis for adjusting the Plaintiff’s taxable income as to the instant disposition; ② The Plaintiff’s accounting of the ELW transaction and over-the-counter derivatives transaction conforms to the period of attribution of profits and losses under the Corporate Tax Act; ③ the ELW transaction and over-the-counter derivatives transaction are basically different from the characteristics of the product; ④ the scope of transaction partners and legal responsibilities are completely different; ④ the ELW transaction of a liquidity supplier’s ESW transaction and over-the-counter derivatives transaction and liquidity supplier’s e-counter derivatives transaction are completely different from their economic substance; thus, they cannot be acquired at the same time; ⑤ the Plaintiff is not in a position to choose these forms of transactions; thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations

A) Definition of gross income and deductible expenses

(1) Article 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010)

Paragraph (1) provides that "the income of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the amount calculated by deducting the total amount of losses incurred in the business year from the total amount of earnings during the business year," and the above provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the total amount of the income generated in Korea by a foreign corporation for each business year, which has a domestic place of business, pursuant to Article 92 (1) of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as "the foregoing provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to Articles 15 (1), 19 (1), the main sentence of Article 22, the main sentence of Article 40 (2), and the main sentence of Article 41 (1)

(2) First of all, Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "the amount of profit shall be the amount of profit generated from transactions which increase the net assets of the relevant corporation, except as provided in capital or financing and this Act." Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "the necessary matters concerning the scope and classification of profit under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 11 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "transfer amount of asset" shall be included in the gross income. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff sells ELW, which is asset, to investors, the transfer amount shall be included in the gross income.

(3) Article 19 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred from transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation concerned except refund of capital or financing, disposal of surplus funds, and those prescribed by this Act." Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "the necessary matters concerning the scope and classification of losses under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the book value as at the time of transfer of transferred assets shall be included in deductible expenses." Furthermore, as regards the book value, Article 22 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "The acquisition value of assets before its acquisition value shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year," Article 20 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that "the value before its acquisition value shall be reduced by Presidential Decree No. 20 (20).13).

B) The time of accrual of earnings and losses

Article 40(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "the business year of accrual of earnings and losses for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the business year which includes the date on which the earnings and losses are determined." Meanwhile, Article 40(2) of the same Act provides that "the matters necessary for the scope of the business year of accrual of earnings and losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 68(1)3 and 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "the business year of accrual of earnings and losses from the transfer of assets excluding goods, products or other products shall be the business year which includes the date on which the profits and losses accrued for the first time by the Plaintiff to investors shall be included in the calculation of earnings and losses for the business year, and it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to pay the sale price to investors during the business year in question.

2) Determination as to substance over form principle

A) Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “where the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, and tax law shall apply to the person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction actually belongs, regardless of the name or form of such transaction,” and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “the calculation of tax base under tax-related Acts shall apply to the substance thereof, regardless of the name or form of income, profit, property, act or transaction,” and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that “in cases where it is recognized that benefits of this Act or tax-related Acts are unduly received through indirect method through a third party or two or more acts or transaction, it shall be deemed that the parties have made a direct transaction, and thus, this Act or tax-related Acts shall apply to the exclusion of taxation without the principle of no taxation without law.”

B) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances in light of the significance and purpose of the substance over form principle as seen above, and the relationship between the no taxation without law and the principle of no taxation, the Plaintiff’s issuance price and not sales to investors, and the Plaintiff’s transfer of the ELW issued by the issuer to the issuer at the same time as the issued price, and the Plaintiff’s transfer of the ELW to investors after selling the same OTCW to the issuer and selling it to investors, and then including the difference between the acquisition price and the sale price for the pertinent business year. It does not constitute an unreasonable form or appearance that differs from the substance of the taxation requirement for the purpose of avoiding the tax burden. Therefore, the instant disposition, which adjusted the Plaintiff’s taxable income in the same way as the Plaintiff’s transfer of the taxable income, is unlawful.

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to authorize the Plaintiff to hold the status of a liquidity supplier (LP) who does not issue the ELW (hereinafter referred to as a “third party”) and to hold that the ELW issuer has the same economic substance as it concurrently holds the role of a liquidity supplier (hereinafter referred to as a “ issuer”) and almost 23). (A) The economic substance of the issuer’s position as an issuer is acquired by selling the ELW to investors, and if the maturity evaluation price of the underlying asset exceeds the exercise price, the Plaintiff bears the risk of incurring loss equivalent to the exercise amount arising from the exercise of the right by the holder of the ELW.

(B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, as a third party LP, took over all ESW issued by the issuer in connection with the pertinent contract, while selling the same OTC derivatives (such as basic assets, issue price, exercise price, maturity, etc.) to the issuer. As such, due to these forms of transactions, the issuer would not enjoy economic benefits of the amount equivalent to the price for the sale of ELW, and even if the appraisal price of underlying assets is higher than the exercise price, the issuer would be obliged to pay the price for the exercise of rights in accordance with ELW even if it would be paid by the Plaintiff with the exercise of rights equivalent to the amount of money that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay by exercising its rights. Accordingly, the issuer would not be at risk of loss in exercising its rights.

On the other hand, in relation to the economic substance of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sold the same OTC derivatives as the ELW product to the issuer and received the sales price of OTC derivatives equivalent to the ELW acquisition price from the issuer, acquired the ELW sales price from selling ELW to investors as economic gains, and, if the maturity evaluation price of underlying assets exceeds the exercise price, the issuer, who holds the OTC derivatives, bears the risk of incurring considerable loss in the exercise of rights arising from the exercise of rights incorporated into the OTC derivatives by the issuer.

(C) Ultimately, the economic benefits acquired by the ELW issuer and the economic risks borne by the ELW issuer are transferred to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has the same economic substance as that of the issuer.

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances, in order for the Plaintiff, a third-party LP, to have almost the same economic substance as that of the issuer, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act of accepting the ELW at the issue price from the issuer and selling it to the issuer with the same contents of the ELW, was conducted for the purpose of avoiding tax burden, or that the Plaintiff took an unreasonable form or appearance that is distinguishable from the substance of the taxation requirement.

(A) According to Article 28-2 (1) and (4) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007, No. 8635 of Feb. 4, 2009), when a foreign securities company intends to establish a branch or other business office in order to conduct the securities business in Korea, it shall obtain permission from the Financial Services Commission for each type of business, and since the permitted branch or other business office is deemed a securities company, the plaintiff's business office is not a securities company, but the securities company is deemed a securities company under the former Securities and Exchange Act. Therefore, it is problematic whether the plaintiff's business office regarded as a securities company is possible to issue the ELW. However, in addition to the purport of the argument stated in the evidence No. 4 above, the Ministry of Justice can not issue securities such as EW under the name of the securities company since the domestic branch of a foreign securities company was merely the main body of business activities and did not belong to the third party and the legal entity. Ultimately, the plaintiff's business office cannot issue the EW under the former Securities and Exchange Act.

(B) Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to have almost the same economic substance as the issuer, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ELW from the issuer and sales of the OTC derivatives identical with the ELW to the issuer, thereby practically taking the risk of profit and loss arising from the fluctuation in the price of underlying assets. In other words, if OTC derivatives transactions are not accompanied, the possibility of profit and loss arising from the fluctuation in the price of underlying assets remains in the issuer. The Plaintiff sells ELW to investors in the position of the liquidity supplier and then purchases it again to obtain profit and loss arising from the fluctuation in the ELW, only the economic substance, which is not substantially different from the economic substance of ordinary investors, can be seen as having only the economic substance that is not significantly different from the economic substance of ordinary investors.

(C) The Defendant pointed out that the issuer’s transaction with the Plaintiff may not enjoy any economic benefits, but it is a result of issuing ELW and is a non-reasonable form of transaction. However, even from the issuer’s standpoint, the issuer may not enjoy the benefits arising from the decline in the price of underlying assets, rather than enjoying a fixed fee due to the decline in the price of underlying assets, and thus, it would result in the failure of the issuer to incur losses due to the decline in the price of underlying assets. Therefore, it is unreasonable to conduct such a form of transaction.

(라) 다음의 사정들을 종합하면, 원고가 ELW를 인수할 때 시가가 아닌 발행가격으로 인수한 것이 조세회피를 위한 것이라거나 비합리적인 거래에 해당한다고 할 수 없다. 갑 제12호증의 기재, 이 법원의 한국거래소에 대한 각 사실조회 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, ELW의 발행사는 일반적으로 옵션의 가격 산출에 사용되는 블랙-숄즈 모델이라는 수식을 사용하되 그 모델의 한계를 극복하기 위해 추정변수를 사용하고 변수 추정의 불확실성에 대한 예상 위험회피거래비용 등 제반비용을 고려하여 수학적 산식으로 발행가를 도출하는 사실, 한국거래소는 2014년 11월경까지 ELW의 발행가액을 규제하면서 만일 ELW의 발행가액이 한국거래소가 제시한 하한에 미달할 경우 상장을 승인하지 않은 사실이 인정된다. 이처럼 ELW의 발행가 산출과정은 나름의 합리성을 가지고 있을 뿐 아니라, 한국거래소가 발행가의 결정에 영향을 미쳤다는 사정을 고려하면, 원고와 같은 유동성공급자나 발행사가 발행가를 임의로 결정할 수 있는 구조가 아니었다. 또한, 갑 제5호증, 갑 제8호증의 2, 갑 제12호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, ① 발행사가 ELW를 발행하기 위해 인수자를 공모하는데 사용되는 투자설명서의 내용은 공모가격과 발행가격이 동일함을 전제로 하여 기재되어 있는 사실, ② 발행사가 유동성 공급자와 ELW 유동성공급계약을 체결할 때에도 발행가에 인수하는 증권 수를 곱하는 방식으로 인수대금을 계산함으로써 발행가가 인수가격과 동일하다는 것을 전제로 하고 있는 사실, ③ 원고가 인수한 ELW의 발행가액보다 투자자들에게 최초로 매도한 금액이 항상 낮은 것은 아닌 사실 등이 인정되고, 이러한 사실들에 ④ 유가증권시장 상장규정 시행세칙(2013. 5. 13. 규정 제917호로 전부개정되기 전의 것) 제13조의2 제3호가 ELW 신규상장신청서의 첨부서류 중 하나로 ELW의 납입을 증명할 수 있는 서류를 들고 있으므로 만일 유동성 공급자가 발행가액보다 낮은 가격으로 ELW를 인수하게 된다면 발행사가 발행가액과 인수가액의 차액 상당액을 대신 납입해야 하는데 그러한 대납의 적법 여부도 문제이지만, 장외파생상품거래로 인해 확정적인 발행수수료 외에 아무런 수익을 기대할 수 없는 발행사가 그와 같은 금액을 대납하면서까지 발행가액보다 낮은 가격으로 ELW를 인수하도록 승낙할 이유가 없는 점, ⑤ 원고가 ELW를 인수하는 단계에서 추후 최초 투자자에게 매도할 때의 시장가격을 미리 결정할 수 없을 뿐 아니라 예측하기도 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 원고가 조세회피를 위하여 시가와 무관한 높은 가격인 발행가격으로 ELW를 인수하였다고 볼 수 없다.

(3) There are other indirect facts that may obstruct the recognition of the purpose of tax avoidance.

(A) Even according to the Defendant’s taxation logic itself, if it disregards the factors such as the difference of corporate tax rate for each business year, and the issue fee additionally included in deductible expenses in the course of income adjustment, the total business year is deemed to have been included in the total business year, and as a result, it is limited to the year to which the profit and loss is attributed and the year to which the corporate tax base is attributed, the total amount of principal tax to be additionally paid is not a problem, and only

(B) As alleged by the Defendant, if the Plaintiff intended to avoid tax burden by recognizing large-scale losses as early as a result of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of a large number of losses in the business year in which the maturity comes, the Plaintiff should have concentrated on the business year in which the Plaintiff acquired the ELW and the business year in which the maturity comes. However, considering that the portion of the transaction in the same ELW between the business year in which the maturity comes and the business year in which the maturity comes is similar to that of the transaction in the same ELW, or rather much according to the business year, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff intended to avoid tax avoidance through the ELW transaction and the eLW financial product transaction.

(C) As alleged by the Defendant, even though the difference between the corporate tax rate for the business year 2008 and the business year 2009 was partly incurred, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had the purpose of evading the burden of tax by using it. According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, it is recognized that there was a press report on the reduction of the corporate tax rate around June 3, 2008. However, according to the following facts, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been in accordance with the amended Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 9267) as amended on December 26, 2008, since it was deemed that there was a lack of time to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s investment in OTC derivatives for the business year 208 and the year 2009, as it appears that there was a lack of time limit for the Plaintiff’s investment in OTC derivatives for the business year 14, 15, and 16, and that there was a lack of time limit for the Plaintiff’s investment in the business year 200000-year business year.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful because there is no legitimate ground for disposition.

section 3.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.