1. The Defendant’s corporate tax of KRW 5,681,201,650 as to the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, as the corporate tax of KRW 2,125,39, which reverts to the Plaintiff for the business year of 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 4, 1989, the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established pursuant to the Korean Private School Promotion Foundation Act (hereinafter “Private School Foundation Act”) for the purpose of operating and managing affairs concerning the creation and financing of funds for the educational environment of private schools in a rational manner.

B. Under the Private School Foundation Act, the Plaintiff established a Private School Promotion Fund and runs a business of financing funds necessary for the improvement, repair, and expansion of the property of private school institutions and educational facilities and equipment (hereinafter “instant loan business”).

C. Upon reporting corporate tax from 2011 to 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on all interest income accrued from the instant loan project as a reserve fund for its proper purpose business (reserve fund for private school facility loans) to include it in deductible expenses.

The plaintiff has used the reserve fund for proper purpose business (interest income) included in the deductible expenses as financial resources for loan business for re-financing.

E. From May 2, 2016 to June 3, 2016, Daegu regional tax office conducted a regular tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and as a result, on July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax investigation that the instant loan business constitutes a profit-making business and does not constitute a proper purpose business prescribed in Article 29 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. As such, the Plaintiff denied all the reserves for proper purpose business appropriated as deductible expenses from 2011 to 2015 to impose the same disposition as stated in the purport of the claim.

F. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the National Tax Service, but the National Tax Service decided not to accept the said request on October 28, 2016.

G. On November 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing corporate tax and additional tax on the Plaintiff for the business year from 2011 to 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff.