Seocho 2010west 1989 ( October 16, 201)

Application of preferential interest rate is ordinary expenses, and purchase price of non-performing loans is normal price.

Since the company's corporate bonds incorporated in trust products substantially cause losses, early termination of trust products and application of preferential interest rate to the customer who subscribed to term deposits is the expenses paid according to the business needs to prevent the outflow of funds by trust customers and maintain the profit-making foundation, and the purchase price of non-performing loans is the purchase price of the same ratio as the foreign

2010Guhap32983 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct corporate tax

XX Bank, Inc.

The director of the tax office

November 18, 2011

December 23, 2011

1. The Defendant’s rejection of correction of KRW 9,828,562,270 of the corporate tax of the business year 2006 against the Plaintiff on April 29, 2010 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. The Plaintiff is a corporation that mainly runs the banking business and concurrently runs the trust business.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from January 19, 2006 to August 30, 2006, conducted the Plaintiff’s consolidated investigation of corporate tax for the business year from 2001 to 2005, discovered the following matters and corrected the tax base through inclusion in deductible expenses, inclusion in gross income, and inclusion in gross income.

(1) Application of additional interest rates to compensate for losses to trust customers

The Plaintiff, while running trust business, sold trust goods (non-taxable trust, new type trust, and accumulated trust goods) with large amounts of corporate bonds issued by XX semiconductors (hereinafter referred to as " XX"). On April 2002, the Plaintiff sold trust goods with large amounts of corporate bonds (non-taxable trust, new type trust, and accumulated trust goods). In accordance with the "plan for the normalization of the Fund" implemented as of April 2002 as of April 200 not trading in the market any more and more corporate bonds are traded in the market, but the account book value invested in the above trust goods was considerably depreciated, resulting in losses. As such, the Plaintiff would terminate the above trust goods among the customers who purchased the above trust goods, and additionally apply "+4% preferential interest rate for business stores" to the customers who subscribed to the Plaintiff's term deposit.

The Defendant applied the above preferential interest rate to the Plaintiff’s trust loss in fact from the Plaintiff’s bank account, which does not fall under the scope of deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) the purchase amount of electronic medical card (digital smart card) business rights;

Around April 2001, an O hospital established an electronic medical card business within a hospital in accordance with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s policy for medical informatization, such as the introduction of the electronic health insurance card at the Ministry of Health and Welfare. On April 29, 2002, the O hospital entered into a contract to pay KRW 3.3 billion (including value-added tax) to the above community credit cooperative in return for guaranteeing O hospital’s right to implement the electronic medical card business within a hospital. The Plaintiff included the above KRW 3.3 billion in intangible fixed assets (business rights), but the implementation of the above business was delayed due to the suspension of the government’s electronic medical card business.

The defendant deemed that the purchase price of the above business rights 3.3 billion won is entertainment expenses paid by the plaintiff to secure stable financial business rights within the OO hospital as the title of the e-medical franchise business, and thus excluded the depreciation of the business rights.

(3) Exemption from the redemption fees

From 2001 to 2004, the Plaintiff exempted 2,067,638,408 won in total by allowing a superior customer to be exempted from the redemption fees on the sole basis of the approval of the person with the right to the close-down right. The Defendant deemed this as entertainment expenses for some customers and excluded the excessive amount of entertainment expenses from the deductible expenses.

(4) Taxation and coordination on the purchase of non-performing loans;

The plaintiff's local subsidiary of Austria (hereinafter referred to as "△△"), which owned non-performing loans (hereinafter referred to as △△△△) of △△ corporation, △△, △△, for 12,529,00 U.S. dollars 12,529,000 which is 32.3% of the original loan, was purchased from △△ on April 24, 2001, and transferred △△△△ to 775,70.54 U.S. dollars on June 29, 201.

The Defendant deemed the transfer value as the normal price at the time when the Plaintiff purchased △△△△ Claim, and deemed that the purchase price of △△△ Claim by the Plaintiff constitutes an international transaction with a foreign related party having exceeded the arm’s length price and thus becomes the subject of tax adjustment based on the arm’s length price as stated in the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9914, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “International Tax Adjustment Act”), and excluded the purchase price and the arm’s length price from deductible expenses.

(5) Provision of an office for the ▽▽ industry

The Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the ▽▽ industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “▽▽ industry”) and was provided with services such as postal receipt and delivery, logistics management, facilities and cleaning management, the operation of the telephone counseling center, and the management of automation devices. The Plaintiff provided, free of charge, part (9.69) of the first floor below the ground of the Plaintiff’s head office in the ▽▽ industry, so that it can be used as the management of the number of service providers, the waiting place, and the storage place of the relevant tool, and the management expenses paid by the Plaintiff.

The defendant regarded the provision of the above office as a free lease between related parties under the calculation rules, which is an unfair act committed by the defendant, and included the amount of the above rent and management expenses in gross income.

(6) Performance grade for executive officers;

The plaintiff paid a total of KRW 1.6 billion to eM and four officers, who were decided to retire in the business year of 2003 by the resolution of the board of directors on December 29, 2003, and included this in the deductible expenses for the business year of 2004. However, the defendant did not meet the requirement of the officer bonus as deductible expenses.

(7) Management adviser fees, etc. related to retirement of executive officers

From April 30, 2002 to November 4, 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 97,1110,00 ( KRW 7,33,00,000, KRW 65,9310,000, KRW 23,5050,000, KRW 2005) to this MF, who was employed as the Plaintiff president, for management adviser, 97,11,000,000 ( KRW 65,9310,000, KRW 2004, KRW 238,500,000) as management adviser, and the Defendant, who was employed as the Plaintiff subcontractor until April 30, 200, did not satisfy all the requirements of the remaining basic salary for the term of office, KRW 87,30,000,000 for the vehicle (6 months) to which the driver had been employed and the office assigned (3 months), KRW 89,7150,000,000,000 for retirement.

(8) Expenses for managing a foreign officer's company house and company house rental fees

From 201 to 2004, the Plaintiff provided two foreign officers dispatched from Y, Germany, a German bank, separately from the provision of the company house, and shared the company house rent in consideration of the circumstances such as the difficulty in cancelling the company house rent contract even after the above foreign officers retired. Since March 7, 2005, the Plaintiff paid the company house management fee to the current foreign officers. The Defendant deemed that both the company house management fee and the company house rent for the former and incumbent officers were unrelated to their duties and excluded from the deductible expenses.

(9) Denial of the company housing requirements for foreign officers

From April 1, 2004 to May 29, 2005, the Plaintiff offered the leased house (rental deposit KRW 250 million) to a foreign national or a regular director who has a domestic basis. The Defendant added KRW 12 million out of the interest paid for the company house rental deposit to the new TPP who failed to meet the requirements for the provision of the company house to deductible expenses, on the ground that the provision of the leased house to the new TPP constitutes the payment by the office of business. The Defendant added KRW 21 million to deductible expenses.

(10) Operating expenses for overseas subsidiaries;

The plaintiff did not claim management support for five local subsidiaries located in the United States, Canada, and Brazil while claiming management support for overseas subsidiaries.

The defendant calculated 4,983,076,00 won (the amount reflecting the automatically adjusted part in the sales year as a result of the sale of the overseas subsidiary) of management support funds related to the overseas subsidiary, which was not claimed as above, and included this in the calculation of earnings in accordance with the International Tax Adjustment Act.

(c) Specific amounts of non-deductible expenses and gross income are as follows:

D. The Defendant imposed and notified corporate tax on June 1, 2007 and July 2, 2007 upon the increase and correction of the tax base as follows.

E. On March 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year 2006, and the tax base of corporate tax was KRW 931,203,302,692, and the tax amount was KRW 205,148,16,688 according to the reduction and correction three times thereafter and the Plaintiff’s partial acceptance by the Tax Tribunal on September 29, 2009.

F. The Plaintiff asserted that corporate tax for the business year 2006 should be reduced by KRW 9,828,562,285, and filed a request for correction to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the request on April 29, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on May 17, 2010 on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal did not decide on the petition for the lapse of 90 days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 2 through 9, Gap evidence 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 through 7, Eul evidence 9 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related Acts;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination of each issue

(a) Application of additional interest rates to compensate for losses to trust customers;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The beneficiary of a trust product that suffered a large amount of investment loss due to insolvency in XX is to terminate the relevant trust product and provide the customer with the preferential interest rate re-deposited with the term deposit of the Plaintiff bank with the aim of preventing the withdrawal of the customer. In addition, most of the customers who subscribe to the above trust product with the aim of preventing the withdrawal of the Plaintiff as the major customers of the Plaintiff, and the preferential interest rate is applied only to the case where the customer terminates the trust product after April 22, 2002 and opened the above preferential deposit with the above preferential interest rate. Since this is directly related to the ordinary burden of expenses or the Plaintiff's private interest, it should be included in deductible expenses under corporate tax law.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Trust system is to separate ownership, management, and profits from the trust property, and the income accrued from the trust property cannot be attributed to the trust company, and the Corporate Tax Act also stipulates that the income accrued from the trust property shall not be deemed the income and expenses attributed to the trust company. The application of the above preferential interest rate is to compensate for losses and losses incurred from the trust property, which cannot be deemed as losses or expenses of the plaintiff, which is the trust company, and thus cannot be included in the plaintiff's deductible expenses as a matter of course. In addition, the above preferential interest rate is provided only to part of the trust property, which is not all the customers who subscribe to the trust property, and it

(3) Determination

According to Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act, losses or expenses generated or spent from transactions that reduce total assets as a result of reduction of corporate assets shall be included in deductible expenses in principle, if generally accepted ordinary or directly related to profit. Furthermore, barring special circumstances such as violation of the regulations on the supervision of trust business, etc., the deductible expenses per se illegality should be included in deductible expenses as a matter of principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du7779, Jun. 23, 2009). A bank that concurrently operates trust business by the Plaintiff, while a bank that concurrently operates trust business, compensates for losses incurred to the trust account due to the bank account’s expenditure, and even if such violation of the regulations on the supervision of trust business results, such inclusion in deductible expenses cannot be deemed as significantly contrary to social order.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that the above preferential interest rate can be limited to the inclusion of entertainment expenses in deductible expenses. However, in order that the expenditure of the corporation constitutes entertainment expenses, it shall be ① the counterpart of the relevant expenditure must be the persons related to the business, ② the relevant expenditure must be entertainment expenses, school expenses, secret expenses, recompense, and other expenses of a similar nature regardless of the name thereof, ③ it should be paid in connection with the business of the corporation ③ It should be the purpose of the expenditure. ④ The purpose of the expenditure is to promote the smooth progress of transaction by enhancing friendship with the business related persons (see the majority of the above Supreme Court Decisions, etc.). The above preferential interest rate is not paid in the manner of entertainment, entertainment, return, etc., but it is difficult to view that it constitutes entertainment expenses because it is not disbursed for the purpose of making friendship difficult.

(b) Handling of entertainment expenses for purchases of electronic medical card business rights;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The purchase of electronic medical card business rights is costed according to reasonable business judgment in order to increase the plaintiff's profit, but it is only a failure to enforce the policy due to the change of government policy.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that the business profit of the Plaintiff O Hospital branch is the superior point that occurs each year in the amount of KRW 20-3 billion, the Plaintiff did not take measures such as compensation for damages, termination of the contract, and modification of the contract, despite the delay in the EO Hospital’s liability, the Plaintiff’s violation of the contract is entitled to compensation on the basis of “operating Hospital’s operating profit.” In order to carry out the above business, the Plaintiff is entitled to joint-time foreign exchange card companies and alliance companies, etc., first of all, and there is a specific implementation agreement on the distribution of profits and losses and expenses, but these parts have not been determined in advance. In addition, in light of the content of the promotion for the introduction of the EO Hospital digital medical tea in the head office and the Plaintiff’s digital medical clinic’s head office, the purchase of the above EO Hospital’s business rights does not intend to gain profits from the relevant business, but actually constitutes a new purchase of the EO Hospital’s business rights that generated the excess of the pre-existing entertainment entertainment expenses in the position of the O hospital.

In addition, on May 10, 2001, the O Hospital community credit cooperatives entered into a specified money trust contract with the Plaintiff and suffered losses of KRW 3.8 billion. However, there is a strong doubt that the purchase of the above business rights does not actually make up for it.

Even if the purchase of the above business rights is actually purchased, such purchase amount shall not be deemed as "amount acquired with compensation in accordance with appropriate evaluation methods" under Article 12 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, so all of the depreciation amount shall not be included in deductible expenses.

(3) Determination

According to Gap evidence No. 6, the plaintiff analyzed the profitability of the electronic medical card business promoted by an O hospital in accordance with the government's medical informatization policy and submitted a proposal to the O hospital, and the O hospital granted the above electronic medical card business license to the O hospital community credit cooperative, on April 29, 2002, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the implementation of the electronic medical card to pay KRW 3.3 billion in lieu of receiving additional 20 square meters at the first floor and adjacent place for the smooth performance of the business for issuing the electronic medical card for the same period other than the O hospital branch of the plaintiff's OO hospital. However, since the government's medical informatization policy was suspended due to the anti-social organization's fear of personal information leakage, it reserved the implementation of the electronic medical card business, other than the plaintiff bank and ○○ University, ○ University, ○○ University, and ○○ University and its affiliated place, and reserved the implementation of the business.

According to the above facts, an electronic card business right is actually purchased by the Plaintiff for business profit, and constitutes an intangible fixed asset under Article 24 (1) 2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In light of the criteria for determining entertainment expenses, it is difficult to view it as entertainment expenses solely based on the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, even in light of the criteria for determining entertainment expenses. In addition, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was taking the form of purchasing electronic card business rights to compensate for losses incurred in the trust of the OO Hospital community credit cooperatives, or that the purchase amount of the electronic medical card business rights is not “amount

(c) Exemption from redemption fees;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the Plaintiff’s internal rules, the payment fees for the redemption of loans can be exempted only with the approval of the branch right holder. Accordingly, the exemption from the payment fees for the redemption of loans by selecting promising and superior customers is an expenditure to promote the creation of profits of light banks, which constitutes deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) The defendant's assertion

If a fee is reduced or exempted to prevent a certain customer from departing from his/her office by selecting a specific customer like the plaintiff's assertion, it constitutes entertainment expenses where a corporation provides discriminatory benefits to a specific customer, and thus, the excessive amount should be excluded from deductible expenses.

(3) Determination

According to Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff's internal rule, provides that where the whole or part of the loan is repaid before the redemption date of the original contract, it shall be exempted if there are grounds such as cases where the right holder acknowledges it separately, etc., the plaintiff may be exempted from the payment of the payment fees. The plaintiff can recognize that the payment of the payment fees has been exempted from the payment fees for the outstanding loan customers at his discretion pursuant to the above provision. This is recognized as a business rationality as the payment of the expenses to maintain the basis of profit by preventing the secession from the withdrawal of the outstanding customer into other banks. The above exemption of the payment fees for the payment for the redemption for the sole reason that it is performed only by the excellent customer, it shall not be deemed transaction with the related party or entertainment expenses (this does not meet the requirements of the above entertainment expenses).

(d) Tax adjustment for the purchase of non-performing loans;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In 200 and 2001, the Korea ○○○○ Corporation purchased 32.3% of the principal amount from the overseas creditors of △△△△△△ Co., Ltd., and most of the major overseas creditors agreed thereto, and some creditors brought an individual negotiation or lawsuit on the ground that the above ratio is low. The above purchase ratio of 32.3% constitutes the market price (normal price) transaction between the unrelated parties at the time. Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff purchased △△△△△ Claim from △△△ Co., Ltd., which was ex post facto related parties, as the purchase ratio of 32.3% of the above purchase ratio, the Plaintiff’s purchase of △△△△ Claim from △△△ was considered as a transaction exceeding the arm’s length price, and thus

(2) The defendant's assertion

Article 5 (1) 1 of the International Tax Adjustment Act provides that "the transaction price between an independent business operator who does not have any special relationship" in the international transaction between a resident and a foreign related party shall be deemed the arm's length price in the international transaction between the resident and the foreign related party. In 200 and 2001, since the value of △△△ Claim rapidly changes, it cannot be deemed that the transaction price of May 200 at the time of the purchase of △△ Claim and April 24, 2001 at the time of the purchase of the Plaintiff, which is the time of the purchase of △△△ Claim by the Korea ○○○○ corporation, is similar to the transaction price of the △△△△△△△○ corporation. Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the arm's length price based on "other reasonable methods" as stipulated in Article 5 (1) 4 of the International Tax Adjustment Act, and it is difficult for △△△ corporation to have remaining value of the claim at the time of requesting the Plaintiff to purchase the claim and redeem the total amount of the non-performing claim.

(3) Determination

Article 5(1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act provides that the arm's length price shall be calculated by other reasonable methods prescribed by Presidential Decree pursuant to subparagraph 4 only in cases where the arm's length price cannot be calculated by the methods prescribed in subparagraphs 1 through 3. However, there is no evidence to find it impossible to calculate the arm's length price of the above transaction by the method prescribed in Article 5(1)1 through 3 of the International Tax Adjustment Act, or by the method prescribed in Article 5(1)1 through 3 of the International Tax Adjustment Act (or evidence No. 8-5, 6, and 7). According to the records No. 8-5, No. 8-5, No. 2000, a number of foreign creditors and third parties without special relationship with the Korean ○○○○○○○ Corporation, etc. on the basis that most foreign creditors agreed to purchase 32.3% of the purchase ratio. Therefore, it is illegal to deem the difference between the purchase price and the actual purchase price sold by the Plaintiff at the arm's length price in deductible expenses under Article 5(1).

E. Provision of an office for the ▽▽ industry

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s provision of a place necessary for the provision of services in the service industry is not only an act of economic rationality but also an ordinary commercial practice. The burden of office provision and management expenses is part of the contractual terms that are stipulated in the service contract with the ▽▽ industry, and it is unlawful to regard only this part of the contract as a gratuitous provision of assets to a person with a special relationship and as an object of unfair calculation.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The act of allowing a person to use a building owned by him without any consideration to the person with a special relationship and bearing the management expenses (such as electricity fees) is not considered a reasonable normal transaction of an economic person, so it is subject to Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 88 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(3) Determination

According to the records on the evidence No. 9, the plaintiff agreed to provide the office, lodging room, rest room, worker waiting room, things box, material warehouse, materials warehouse, etc., collection equipment, telephone, water supply, electricity, heating, etc., according to the event management service contract (the amount changed on Nov. 4, 2005) entered into with the ▽▽ industry on Sept. 1, 2005, the plaintiff agreed to provide the office, lodging room, room, worker waiting room, material warehouse, material warehouse, etc., and the plaintiff's collective logistics contract entered into with the ▽▽▽ industry on Nov. 30, 2006, when necessary for the performance of the supply and demand business, and if so requested, the plaintiff provided workers' waiting room, things box, material storage room, telephone, water supply, etc., and the share of other expenses, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff provided the office's management expenses and bears the management expenses.

According to the above, the Plaintiff’s provision of office and the burden of management expenses for the service industry is in accordance with the service contract, and there is no reason to deem that the agreement on the provision of office and management expenses for the above office is invalid as it is in violation of the mandatory law. Thus, this part of the obligation to provide payment in a bilateral contract should not be deemed as a case where the Plaintiff’s provision of office and management expenses for the above office constitutes a gratuitous loan or provision of the assets under Article 88(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, by removing only the part of the obligation to provide payment in the bilateral contract. (In such a way, whether the calculation of unfair acts is denied should be determined by comparing both the service fees paid by the Plaintiff and the service fees paid by the Plaintiff and the market price and management expenses borne by the above office with the objective economic value of the service provided by the ▽ industry to the Plaintiff)

(f) Performance grade for executives;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

On December 29, 2003, by a resolution of the board of directors on December 29, 2003, the Plaintiff amended the Regulations on Remuneration, Welfare, and Travel Expenses for Executive Officers (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations on Remuneration for Executive Officers") to ensure that the remuneration for executive officers shall be the basic salary and the performance-based bonus, and the board of directors referred to the "compensation payment such as performance-based bonus for management progress" and passed a resolution that the retired executive officers shall pay performance-based bonuses to the retired executive officers during the restructuring of corporate governance through inducement of foreign capital. As long as performance-based bonuses are paid according to the payment criteria determined by the board of

(2) The defendant's assertion

The resolution of the light board of directors of the Plaintiff’s light compensation regulations is difficult to be deemed as an objective payment standard because the specific payment period and payment rate of piece rates are not determined, and thus, bonuses paid therefrom should be excluded from deductible expenses pursuant to Article 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In addition, the revision of the performance rate payment regulations to pay performance rates retroactively to the existing executives who already retired, and the resolution to pay piece rates would actually have paid retirement consolation benefits to the retired executives, and the additional payment of retirement consolation benefits to the executives who

(3) Determination

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 12 and the arguments, the plaintiff held a board of directors on December 29, 2003 and held a board of directors on December 29, 2003 to pay a separate piece rate in consideration of the fact that the retired executive MF, the PO, the maximumO, the external RR, the KimS, and Park T-T-T in November 2003, he paid piece rate to the above executive officers on the basis of a significant improvement in the financial ratio through inducement of foreign capital during the year 2003. The president of this case, the president of this case, shall pay a separate piece rate in consideration of the fact that he/she attempted to pay the plaintiff to the highest level of bank. This case’s president, the 270% basic rate, the maximum UU, the vice president, and the KimS, the 160% basic rate, and Park T-T, the executive director of this case, the fact that the piece rate was paid to the above executive officers on January 29, 2004.

According to the opposite interpretation of Article 43 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, bonuses paid according to the standards for the payment of salaries determined by the board of directors by the resolution shall be included in the calculation of losses. According to the above facts, bonuses paid according to the above facts. Thus, since these bonuses were paid according to the standards for the payment of salaries determined by the resolution of the board of directors (at the time of the resolution of the board of directors, since this MM submitted a resignation certificate, but it still did not take effect, the effect of the above resolution is naturally because it did not take effect, and there is no reason to regard the above resolution as being expected to immediately retire, and there is no reason to regard otherwise in the case of tear, EOR, KimS, and Park T-T as it was already resigned at November 203. However, the above resolution of the board of directors is to make the payment of bonuses by evaluating the results during the period in which it had worked, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provisions are the payment of bonuses for the Plaintiff's business and deductible expenses.

(g) Management adviser fees, etc. related to retirement of executives;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the basic salary of the remaining term of office in terms of compensation for damages as a result of the foreign capital inducement in 2003 requires the full replacement of the officers' careers, and instead of his own cause or personal circumstances. The former president of the foreign capital inducement in 2003 paid the amount equivalent to the basic salary of the remaining term of office in terms of compensation for damages. Since the former president of the foreign capital inducement in 200 has concluded a advisory contract to reduce

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since retired executives voluntarily submitted a resignation letter, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate for the loss. Since the plaintiff was not actually provided with advisory services from EM, it is not necessary to pay management adviser fees. The amount paid to retired executives is actually paid as retirement consolation, and it exceeds the retirement pay limit.

(3) Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 14, witness GaV testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, on October 31, 2003, KF Fund affiliate companies (hereinafter referred to as "K") which become a new major shareholder of the plaintiff demanded to retire among the existing management including this MM. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted resignation documents by EM, Maximum RR, KimS, and Park TT for 300 billion won, and on December 29, 2003, the board of directors prepared a resignation agreement with the 300 billion won for 4 billion won on the condition that the plaintiff would be liable for damages by the plaintiff bank's 200,000,000,000 won for 300,0000,000,000 won for 30,000,000,000 won for 4,000,000 won for 30,0000,000 won for 30,000,000 won.

In light of the above facts, the defendant also deemed management adviser fee received from the plaintiff as earned income and disposed of as bonus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff entered into an advisory contract with the plaintiff and was actually provided with management adviser service from the plaintiff, and paid management adviser fee in return.

WW also, without any reason or personal circumstance (Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act). The phrase “justifiable reason” is insufficient merely because of lack of subjective trust relationship between a shareholder and a director, etc. It is difficult for a director to perform acts in violation of the law or the articles of incorporation or to fulfill his duties as a mental or physical manager. There is a justifiable reason to dismiss the director before his term of office begins only when objective circumstances such as where the director has lost trust relationship with the management ability due to failure to establish or implement an important business plan, etc. It is difficult to perform his business as an operator. It is not reasonable for the board of directors to regard the expenses to be ordinarily paid for the business prior to the expiration of the term of office at the request of the plaintiff’s controlling shareholder, and it is not reasonable for the director to unilaterally dismiss the expenses prior to the expiration of the term of office, and it is not reasonable for the plaintiff to regard the expenses as reasonable for the former management and payment to be incurred in accordance with the overall operation of the corporation after the expiration of the term of office.

Although the remaining retired officers are not registered as directors under the Commercial Act, Article 385 of the Commercial Act is not likely to be problematic, it is reasonable to include the amount equivalent to the remuneration for the employment contract period remaining after the plaintiff paid to them in deductible expenses as in the case of this W, since the submission of resignation at the request of the plaintiff only without any reason or personal circumstances despite the remaining employment contract period between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is equivalent to the unilateral dismissal by the employer.

Therefore, the non-deductible of this part is illegal.

(h) Management expenses for foreign officers' company houses and rental fees for company houses;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The housing management expenses paid at the time of the former foreign executive officer's employment and the housing management expenses paid to the current foreign executive officer are reasonable expenses paid in accordance with the payment regulations. Even after the retirement of a foreign executive officer, the payment of the housing rental fees and the housing management expenses incidental thereto for a certain period is an economic rationality.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Unlike the general staff, it is not reasonable that the Plaintiff paid the company house management expenses only to the officers, and the company house rental fees and management expenses for the period after the termination of the labor contract with the former officer are paid without the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay them. The company house management expenses paid to the current foreign officers after March 7, 2005 shall be excluded from deductible expenses, as the Plaintiff did not have the obligation

(3) Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 22, the plaintiff entered into a statement of understanding on the allocation of Y executives' company housing to △△△△, remuneration, additional benefits, travel expenses, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "MU"), which was dispatched on October 8, 1998 for the purpose of business assistance, with △△△△△△△△△△, and the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the above executives to bear the expenses for the management of the company housing, such as electricity, welfare, and travel expenses, in addition to the rental fees. The plaintiff, which is the internal regulations of the plaintiff at the time, can provide the foreign executives with the housing free of charge, and the expenses for the repair and maintenance of the company housing, such as the electricity, gas, oil, and water supply, were to be borne by the plaintiff after 00. The plaintiff paid the rental housing and the management expenses for the above officers' company housing to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ for the period of early 2003 years prior to the retirement of the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, the company housing management expenses for former foreign officers were paid lawfully in accordance with the MO and the executive compensation regulations, which are subsidiary regulations within the plaintiff (it cannot be deemed unreasonable in itself that more favorable treatment is given to executive officers than general employees in their remuneration and welfare). According to the evidence No. 21 in the case of △△△△, it cannot be deemed unreasonable that the contract can not be terminated if it is no longer necessary to lease a house due to reasons such as departure from Korea, etc. after setting the lease contract period until March 31, 2004 under the revised contract of △△△△△△△△△, which was not the case where the contract can be terminated due to reasons such as departure from Korea. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the above △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was illegal because it was no longer reasonable for the defendant to legally rent a house due to reasons such as temporary retirement from office, or that it could no longer be seen that it was unlawful by the △△△△△△△△△, which was no longer reasonable for the above 20 years.

(i) Denial of the requirements for a company house offered as an officer;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The new PP executive director is governed by the regulations on compensation for executive officers as executive officers, and the expenses for the provision of rent-to-rent housing for foreigners meet the requirements for the provision of rent-to-rent under the regulations on compensation for executive officers should be included

(2) The defendant's assertion

NewPP is a foreign national, but actually residing in the Republic of Korea for more than ten years, and is not subject to the regulations on executive remuneration. The plaintiff provides a leased house according to the agreement that "at least 25 million won shall be provided for the new PP," which is stipulated in the annual salary contract, rather than the regulations on executive remuneration," which is stipulated in the annual salary contract. In addition, new PP is to be determined as a national in the Republic of Korea on the basis of a new house, and new PP is to newly rent and provide a new house, and it cannot be deemed as a company house.

(3) Determination

According to the above evidence and evidence evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 22 through 24, the new PP is a regular director of the plaintiff bank with U.S. nationality, who is not the plaintiff's shareholder or a member of the board of directors, and the plaintiff's "Rules on the Appointment of Business Affairs, etc.", if a general employee is appointed as a regular director, he newly enters into a contract of regular employment after he/she is automatically treated as a regular director, and Article 6 (5) of the plaintiff's executive compensation regulations provides that the plaintiff can lend a company house to a foreign officer, and all management expenses and repair and maintenance expenses incurred in managing

According to the above facts, although a newP is not a member of the board of directors, and is a foreigner who is engaged in duties equivalent thereto and falls under the plaintiff's officer pursuant to Article 43 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (the regulations on compensation for executive officers of the plaintiff demanding that the plaintiff be a foreigner as a requirement for providing a company house, but does not demand that the plaintiff be a real basis for living in a foreign country). Under the plaintiff's provision on compensation for executive officers, the maintenance expenses, management expenses, and user fees for the company house provided to an executive who is not a stockholder should be recognized as losses under the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, it is unlawful to exclude the rent of the company house provided to the newP from deductible expenses (a rental house offered by the plaintiff to the newP is a house provided by the employer in accordance with an employment contract, and it cannot be deemed a company house solely on the ground that it is a house newly leased

(j) Expenses incurred in operating overseas subsidiaries;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s management support expenses of KRW 4.983 billion in the calculation of earnings is not the Plaintiff’s actual provision of services, and the expenses related to managing, supervising, or ascertaining the current status of the subsidiaries as shareholders are not affected by the profitability and business performance of the overseas subsidiaries, and thus, the Plaintiff may not be forced to include them in the calculation of earnings. The remainder of KRW 983 million in the calculation of earnings is the actual provision of services, but the U.S. and Canada did not claim as management support expenses for the subsidiaries since it is not clear whether it is possible to include the expenses in the calculation of earnings of the subsidiaries.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the expenses claimed by the Plaintiff as expenses related to shareholder activities are 4 billion won that contribute to the profitability of the local subsidiary by efficiently managing the business affairs of the local subsidiary and reducing the financial risk of the local subsidiary, it shall be considered as management support expenses. The remainder of the expenses may be included in deductible expenses after the payment to the Plaintiff of the management support expenses, so there is no ground for the Plaintiff not to claim them.

(3) Facts of recognition

The details of management support expenses for each local corporation and each item of the business support expenses that the plaintiff did not claim for the overseas local corporation and the expenses related to the provision of services among them are as follows.

(A) Details of management support funds for each local subsidiary

(b) Details of support funds by item of non-requested management

(C) Expenses related to the provision of services to an overseas subsidiary out of the non-claim management support expenses

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence prior to dispute, purport of whole pleading

(4) Determination

983 million won, which is the cost of the plaintiff's provision of services to overseas subsidiaries, can be claimed for management support expenses for the overseas subsidiaries. Therefore, it is subject to inclusion of expenses for the overseas subsidiaries in the calculation of earnings in accordance with the local tax law, which is irrelevant to the division of inclusion of expenses for the overseas subsidiaries, but the remaining 4 billion won is not for the plaintiff's overseas subsidiaries but for the plaintiff's use of expenses for the profits of the overseas subsidiaries, which is not for the plaintiff's overseas subsidiaries, and it

4. Conclusion

The disposition of this case rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction is unlawful, since the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant, even though the corporate tax in the business year 2006 should be reduced by 9,828,562,285 won.