Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Jeju Tax Office

December 11, 2013

Jeju District Court Decision 201Guhap772 Decided July 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s application for imposition of global income tax of KRW 60,074,110 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 172,69,150 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 2002, global income tax of KRW 771,360 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 9,645,790 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 7,133,790 (including additional taxes) for the year 2005, global income tax of KRW 7,114,240 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 19,114,240 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 12,504,460 (including additional taxes), global income tax of KRW 207, global income tax of KRW 157,197, and KRW 301,540 (including additional taxes) for the year 2008, and each of the reasons for imposition of additional taxes of KRW 301,304.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff seeking revocation below shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 60,074,110 (including additional taxes) for the Plaintiff on October 4, 201, of KRW 5,505,873, and KRW 54,568,237, global income tax of KRW 172,69,150 (including additional taxes) for the year 202; the imposition of KRW 14,318,428; the imposition of KRW 14,350,728; the imposition of global income of KRW 771,360 for the year 203; the imposition of global income of KRW 9,645,790 for the year 204; the imposition of additional taxes of KRW 209,360 for the year 205; the imposition of additional taxes of KRW 40,360; the imposition of global income tax of KRW 394,2094,2979.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the calculation table of the amount of political party tax stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes stated in the separate sheet No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the separate sheet No. 4 shall be replaced by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of each of the judgment and the calculation table of the amount of the political party tax stated in the separate sheet No. 4; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as it is in accordance

B. Parts used for repair;

1) Of the judgment of the first instance court 2 pages 16, 17 of the judgment, the “the global income tax was imposed, and the global income tax was paid.”

2) 3 pages 1 of the first instance judgment shall be replaced by the following table:

Schedule

Global income tax (won) for the fiscal year to which the table belongs included in the main sentence, 2001 369, 298 2002 381, 325 2003, 727, 390 2004 1,795, 113 2005 897, 506 1,506 2006 1,553,956 207 584,471 207 708,012 2009 385,000,115

3) Defendant 1,694,819,579 won, “1,694,819,579 won,” written 15 pages of the first instance judgment, shall be deemed “1,694,818,579 won.”

4) 3 and 4 pages 2 of the first instance judgment shall be replaced by the following table:

Schedule Initial Global Income Tax Disposition

Notice of global income tax for the calendar year included in the main sentence of this paragraph (won) 2001 87,270,660 202 183,147,7203 6,530,930 204 20,399,710 205 20,637,460 206 55,754,4207 145,929,3108 232,904,4709 24,301,3201,3207,876,000,000

5) On 4 pages 6 of the first instance court’s decision, the “amount of self-denunciation” in the 6th sentence is regarded as “interest income”.

6) The 4 pages 9 to 24 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

"F. After that, the defendant corrected the amount of comprehensive income tax imposed on October 4, 2010 according to the above disposition of imposition as of October 4, 201. Accordingly, the amount of tax to be paid as global income tax for the year 2001 through 2008 shall be as stated in the table 3 (the amount remaining after deducting the amount of tax, etc. paid after correction from the corrected amount of tax recorded in the column). (The imposition of global income tax for the plaintiff determined after correction as above shall be referred to as "each disposition of this case").

The amount of each disposition of this case

601 60,443,406 60,074,110 202 174,510,567 172,69,69,150 203 9,872,772,7717 771,3604 11,916,780 9,645,790 2005,790 8,031,339, 397, 1390 20620620,668,199,114,240,2407,238,92502,5046,50815,9749,57,57,974,57,97,57,406, 2006

* The amount calculated by deducting KRW 5,759,578 from the total amount of global income tax for the year 2003 plus the total amount of KRW 5,7373,567 as of April 5, 2006 and the amount of KRW 6,530,938 as of October 4, 2010, which was previously paid by the Plaintiff as global income tax for the year 2003 plus the total amount of KRW 15,631,895, and KRW 5,759,578 as of October 5, 2006.

7) On July 25, 2013, the lower judgment was reversed and the lower court acquitted the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff had actively concealed or discarded books related to credit business beyond the report or false report, which was sentenced to five pages 5 of the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff appealed from Jeju District Court Decision 2012No546.7.25, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had actively concealed or discarded books related to credit business beyond the report or false report. As a prosecutor filed an appeal against the said appellate judgment, the instant case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

8) On 5 pages 5, 6 of the first instance judgment, “Nos. 13, 14, and 14,” respectively.

9) Each of the six pages 2 of the judgment of the first instance court stated “The amount of interest so claimed by the Plaintiff as to this part is as follows.” The amount of interest so claimed by the Plaintiff is as follows: [The number stated in the following table is the number stated in the Jeju Tax Office (Evidence No. 9) prepared and submitted by Nonparty 2 around 2010, as well as the Plaintiff’s corporate bonds and the payment interest list (Evidence No. 9; hereinafter, the same shall apply in each Note No. 3)].

10) Of the 7 pages 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “298.8.8” as indicated on the date set forth in Section 12 shall be read as “the August 2008.”

11) The three pages 6 to 9 pages 8 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

(2) The Plaintiff did not prepare a separate account book for the following reasons, i.e., for the period of 0 years from 201 to 208, for which Nonparty 2 had no record of its own account under the name of Nonparty 1, 7, 29, 10, 12, 13, and 30-1 to 13, and the Plaintiff did not prepare a separate account book for the period of 0 years from 2001 to 208, i.e.,, for which the Plaintiff had no record of 10,000 account books for the total amount of 0,000,000 won and no record of 2,000,000,000 won and no record of 2,000,000 won and no record of 2,00,000 won and no record of 3,000 won and less than 9,00 won and no record of 2,005,00 won and more.

12) On 10 pages 5 of the first instance judgment, the phrase “269,890,000 won,” “369,890,000 won,” shall be deemed to read “369,890,000 won,” respectively.

13) On the 11th and 4th of the judgment of the first instance court, the Criminal Trial Division of this case acknowledges that the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 15,00,000 as stated in the above written confirmation as interest in the name of interest.

14) Of the 13th sentence of the first instance trial, the phrase “30,000,000 won” in the 12th sentence shall be read as “60,000,000 won”.

15) The 15th 9th 9,10th 15th 15th 15th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 1st 2th 2th 2th 200.

16) The phrase “non-party 4” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court shall be read as “non-party 4”.

17) Two to ten pages of the first instance judgment are as follows.

“The tax amount of KRW 264,390,00 is as seen earlier. The legitimate tax amount of global income tax (including additional tax) for each of the following calendar years is KRW 54,937,533 in the year 201 as shown in the attached Table 4 (i.e., global income tax: KRW 20,487,192 + KRW 3,820,848 + the additional tax of KRW 30,629,493); + the additional tax of KRW 146,192,145 in the year 202 + the additional tax of KRW 14,261,397 + the additional tax of KRW 58,365,327 + the additional tax of KRW 14,261,397 + the additional tax of KRW 58,365,421), 206 + the additional tax of KRW 17,529,298,279,371,2797,2707).

Therefore, 5,505,873 won of global income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2001, which falls under the difference between the amount of tax determined in each of the dispositions of this case and the amount of tax of the above political party (including additional tax) (i.e., global income tax + global income tax of KRW 1,650,740 + additional tax of KRW 1,343,748 + additional tax of KRW 2,512,125), global income tax of KRW 172,69,150 (including additional tax) for the year 202,69,318,422 (i.e., global income tax of KRW 14,654,70 + Additional tax of KRW 2,350,915 + Additional tax of KRW 11,312,806 + Additional tax of KRW 19,475,206 + Additional tax of KRW 306,475,294,2065).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of Related Acts and Subordinate Statutes]

Judges Sung Pung-sung (Presiding Judge)