The payment made by shareholders to the Plaintiff constitutes capital increaseAA, and the fiscal year of accrual of possession of real estate in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act shall be the time the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The business year of accrual of the assets acquired through the completion of the statute of limitation for the possession of real estate by the lawsuit is the time when the judgment of transfer of ownership becomes final and conclusive.

Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act: Scope of Gross Income

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss)

2015Guhap24095 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

○ Chemical Stock Company

○○ Head of tax office

December 19, 2016

January 25, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,195,675,415, and corporate tax of KRW 366,592,212 (including each additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on March 8, 2013 and KRW 1,195,675,415, and corporate tax of KRW 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

6 South Korea, including ParkA, ParkBB, ParkCC, ParkDD(DD), Park E-E (EE), and ParkF, established '○ pesticide' around December 1968, and ○ pesticide was converted into the Plaintiff corporation on May 26, 1972.

B. Each disposition of this case

On March 8, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to increase or decrease corporate tax to the Plaintiff on the following grounds.

1) AA, around June 2008, the heir of ParkBB, ParkD, ParkE, and Network ParkF, who is the Plaintiff’s shareholders, sold ○○ land owned by the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 3.643 billion out of the proceeds from the sale thereof to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant payment”). The Plaintiff appropriated the instant payment as a loan borrowed from its shareholders, but the Defendant received the instant payment from its shareholders as a "free donation," and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,195,675,415 (including additional tax) for the business year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) On September 7, 2010, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap274, hereinafter referred to as "the civil judgment of this case") against Jung-A and Gangwon-do, the heir of the deceased Park Jong-dae, who is the initial representative director of the plaintiff, for the real estate of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case"), and won the judgment in favor of the court on September 7, 2010. The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2010. The plaintiff included the assessed value of each real estate of this case in the financial statement of this case of this case in the assets of the 2010 business year, and appropriated the other account as a deposit. However, the defendant denied this as the plaintiff acquired each real estate of this case by the civil judgment of this case, and thus, disposed of the amount of two billion won, which is the value of each real estate of this case, as corporate tax of this case, two billion won or less.

No.

Indication of Real Estate

The date of registration in the name of the ParkA.

Date of completion of prescription of possession;

1

Daegu Dong-dong ○○○ 4,623 square meters

on December 20, 1978

may 26, 1992

2

○ Building on the ground of ○○

December 31, 1968

Preservation Registration

may 26, 1992

3

952 square meters prior to ○○○-dong

on October 18, 1985

Preservation Registration

November 30, 1992

4

○ Building on the ground of ○○

on October 18, 1985

Preservation Registration

on October 18, 2005

5

○○○ 6,803m2

on August 20, 1978

Relocation Registration

may 26, 1992

(c) Procedures of the previous trial;

On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on August 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, 10, 20 evidence, Eul evidence 1

of each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the payment of this case was 'a loan to the Plaintiff on the premise that shareholders would be able to obtain a subsequent repayment from the Plaintiff, the Defendant's disposition of this case ① which was made on the premise that shareholders were 'free donation of this case' to the Plaintiff should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

2) Since each real estate of this case was owned by the Plaintiff at the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as the profit from the acquisition of assets belonging to the business year 2010, and even if the Plaintiff appears to have acquired each real estate of this case due to the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession, since the period of reversion of each real estate of this case is the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession, the period of exclusion for imposition already exceeded seven years at the time of the disposition of this case

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A) The following facts and circumstances are revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 15 through 17, 26, 36, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) On May 26, 1972, when the Plaintiff was converted into a corporation, the Plaintiff’s shareholder was comprised of ParkA (30%) ParkB (30%) ParkB (19%) ParkCC (19%) ParkD (7%) (7%) Park E-E, 7%) and ParkF (7%) and ParkA (Death on October 19, 2005) was appointed as the first representative director of the Plaintiff corporation.

(2) On September 12, 200, Park Dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul in order to pay his/her debt corresponding to 30% of his/her equity interest as the plaintiff's shareholder to pay his/her debt that he/she has held (hereinafter referred to as "the letter of performance of this case") was prepared with a statement of performance that "I will mainly make 40 m out of the land of Taechi-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul in order to pay his/her debt equivalent to 30% of his/her own equity interest in order to repay his/her debt that he/she has held as the plaintiff's shareholder (Article 6

(3) In addition, the Plaintiff’s six shareholders, including ParkA, as the shareholder of the Plaintiff, prepared the instant performance memorandum (2 pages B), stating that “The Plaintiff’s six shareholders, as the shareholder of the Plaintiff, will lay down the land or land of ○○○ Dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, equivalent to the share ratio of the Plaintiff himself/herself in order to repay his/her obligations he/she holds,” (However, ParkCC and ParkD did not sign and affix his/her seal on the above performance sheet).

(4) Meanwhile, according to the testamentary document (No. 7, hereinafter referred to as "the testamentary document of this case") prepared by ParkA on October 12, 2000, Park Jong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul was expected to be used by the owner for the debt settlement of the plaintiff, and the land for which the ○○○○○ or Dae-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul was the land for which Park Jong-dong, the owner of which was the owner of the land, and around 1972, Park Jong-dong, Seoul was the land for which the said land was divided into BB, ParkCC, Park Jong-dong, Park Young-dong, Park Young-dong, and Park Jong-dong, which was the shareholder of the plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Park Jong-A, which is the father of the plaintiff, and the above co-owners agreed not to make any disposal, such as the sale of the plaintiff's property independently.

(5) On December 16, 2006, Pursuant to the letter of performance and the will of Park Jong-dong in Gangnam-gu in Seoul, Seoul, 1,545,671,339 (referring to the amount equivalent to 30% of the price of ○○○, an inherited property) of the total of 4.5 billion won, which was inherited property, was determined and paid as testamentary gift amount to the Plaintiff. On January 16, 2007, Park Jong-dong, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff as of January 16, 2007, written a written confirmation (Evidence 8) stating the following matters with the Plaintiff (a certificate).

1. The distribution of ○○ site sales proceeds between the Gangwon-do and the Jeong-si was finally settled, and the basis for calculation was set up by both parties and kept one copy of each.

2. In accordance with the will of the president of the deceased ParkptA, KRW 95,671,339, a single-lane 99,671,339, out of the proceeds from the sale of ○○ site was used to repay the debt of the ○ Chemical, and KRW 550,000,000, a second-lane 50,000 shall be paid to the president of the ○○ Chemical Representative Director so that it can be used to repay the debt of the ○○ Chemical.

3. The above amount of KRW 550,000,000 paid KRW 220,000,000 by the deceased’s will and paid it directly at the above transmission point.

4. As above, as for the above ○○ sales amount, KRW 1,545,671,339 out of the total amount of ○○○ sales amount was used to repay the debt of ○○ chemical, and as the inheritor of the net GamblingA, the duties and obligations that are to be borne by ○○ chemical have been completely resolved.

5. ○ chemical obligations on real estate listed in the separate sheet among the collateral security rights currently held in the name of ParkA, ParkA, and ParkA shall be discharged later.

6. The issue of the factory land in Daegu should be resolved separately by the appropriate AA.

(6) As above, the Plaintiff’s shareholders, including ParkB and other shareholders, bear the obligation to pay the Plaintiff money for the repayment of the obligation by preparing the instant performance memorandum, and Park Jong-dong’s heir, Park Jong-dong’s heir, and Park Jung-gu’s will to pay the money to the Plaintiff for the purchase price of the ○○○ land in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. At the time, ParkB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and Shin, the other shareholders of the Plaintiff, Park Jong-B, and Lee Dong-A confirmed that Park Jong-dong’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff according to the performance memorandum was all fulfilled.

(7) After doing so, A.A., the heir of Park Jong-A, requested the Tax Tribunal to recognize the amount of KRW 1,545,671,339 of the above amount of the obligation as the obligation of the inheritee’s obligation. The Tax Tribunal recognized the above performance angle and will’s effect and accepted the claim of A.A.

Meanwhile, as above, the Defendant: (a) upon receiving a refund of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 1,545,671,339, the Defendant: (b) on September 1, 2010, on the premise that the Plaintiff received a legacy of KRW 1,545,671,39, the said money was deemed as the Plaintiff’s profit from the inheritance of the Plaintiff’s assets; (c) issued a disposition to rectify the increase in corporate tax for the business year 2006 and 2007 (No. 2-1, 2007) to the Plaintiff; (d) the Plaintiff paid this amount; and (e) did not raise any objection to this portion until now.

(8) In addition, on June 2, 2008, gamblingB paid to the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 2.143 billion among the transfer proceeds of ○○○, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for the performance of the above obligation, KRW 2.5 billion, KRW 500 million, KRW 500 million, KRW 3.43 billion, KRW 500 million, KRW 500 million, KRW 3,000,000,000,000 (in accordance with the execution note agreement ratio) to the heir of LbF and KRW 3,000,000,000, KRW 3.643 billion,000,000,000,000 to the tax authorities, like this case’s inheritance tax claim and KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the sale proceeds of each of the above lands, and the public officials claimed for reimbursement of KRW 50,000,00.

B) Specific determination

In light of the above facts, it is more natural to view that the Plaintiff’s shareholders have lent money to the Plaintiff as the gift of part of the land (or sale price) according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and that the Plaintiff’s shareholders have donated money to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s claim, ② the Plaintiff’s shareholders have actually donated part of the sale price of the land to the Plaintiff according to the above performance note, and ParkB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s heir’s share of the above performance note, were paid to the Plaintiff, and there is no other reason to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 5,00 as the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 3,00,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 as the Plaintiff’s share of the above performance note, and KRW 3,00,000,000,000 won and KRW 5,00,000,000,00,000.

Therefore, it is just that the defendant made a disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,195,675,415 on the plaintiff in the business year 2008 by deeming the payment of this case as the plaintiff's assets increase profit, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

2) Determination as to the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A) First of all, we examine whether each of the instant real estate was the Plaintiff’s property at the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff, namely, ① the instant testamentary document 4 prepared by Park Jong-dong, Daegu-gu, stating that “B” was mixed with property and collected, and on this basis, 30 years have passed with ○ chemical management for a longer period of 30 years,” and on the 6 pages of the above testamentary document, stating that “The above 00-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul and Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, were used for corporate debt settlement,” and that “The above 0-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, ○○○ Chemical Factory, etc., was used for corporate property transfer registration, and that each of the instant real estate was completed under the name of the heir, and that each of the instant real estate was completed under the premise that the heir’s ownership transfer registration was completed, and that each of the instant real estate was completed under the name of the heir’s ownership transfer registration, and that each of the instant real estate was completed under the premise that the heir’s ownership transfer registration was completed.

B) We examine the business year of each real estate of this case as follows.

(1) Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each fiscal year shall be the fiscal year which includes the date on which the concerned gross income and losses are determined." In order to be determined as a taxable income, the right which is the cause of the income must be considerably mature in the feasibility of the right which is the cause of the income, and the mere fact that the income is formed without this degree cannot be said to have been determined. In this context, whether the right which is the cause of the income is considerably mature in the feasibility of the realization of the right, shall not be uniformly stated, and the determination shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the specific nature and content of the individual right, and all the circumstances of the law and fact-finding (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1

(2) As alleged by the Plaintiff, according to Article 247(1) of the Civil Act, the effect of acquisition of ownership by prescription is retroactive to the commencement of possession, and upon completion of the period of acquisition by prescription, the possessor may possess and use the relevant real estate from that time. The date of occurrence of the right to claim the real estate acquired by prescription is the expiration date of the period of acquisition by prescription.

However, according to Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, since Article 245(1) provides that a person who occupies real estate in peace and openly and openly with an intention to own it for twenty (20) years acquires ownership by filing a registration, even if the period of prescriptive acquisition expires, the person who acquires the prescriptive acquisition shall acquire the right to claim for registration and not acquire the ownership finally. ② The right to claim for registration upon the completion of prescriptive acquisition is complete unless the person who acquires the prescriptive acquisition loses possession of the real estate for ten (10) years from the time he/she loses possession of the real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da34866, Mar. 8, 1996). ③ Even if the registered titleholder disposes of the real estate to a third party after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, in principle, it is difficult to view the ownership transfer registration as a tort even if it is considerably impossible for the registered titleholder to acquire the real estate from a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da75910, Jul. 111, 25).).

(3) The Plaintiff also regarded the acquisition time as "the date of acquisition by prescription", and asserts that there is no reason to regard the time of acquisition of acquisition by prescription of corporate tax as "the date of acquisition by prescription". The Supreme Court, first of all, decided the acquisition time of real estate, the acquisition by prescription of which has been completed in a decision 2003du1342 Decided November 25, 2004, as at the time of completion of prescription, rather than the final and conclusive market price. In the case of acquisition, regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the real estate substantially complete, the actual acquisition itself is the taxable object. In light of the fact that the acquisition by prescription of Article 7(2) of the Local Tax Act provides that "The acquisition of real estate, etc. shall be deemed to have been actually acquired if the purchaser or transferee of the relevant acquired the acquired article is the date of acquisition by prescription, and the acquisition by prescription of real estate, etc. shall be deemed to have been settled at the time of acquisition by transfer under Article 7(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

However, as seen earlier, Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each fiscal year shall be the fiscal year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are finalized" with the principle of confirmation of rights specified, and Article 68 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act explicitly provides that "the fiscal year of accrual of profits and losses arising from the transfer of assets or the provision of services, etc. of goods, etc. shall be the fiscal year which includes the date on which the profits are finalized in accordance with Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act with respect to the acquisition of real estate in this case." Therefore, in the case of the acquisition of prescription of each real estate in this case, the legal principle on the principle of confirmation of rights that "the fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each fiscal year shall be the fiscal year which includes

(4) In addition, in the event that the completion date of acquisition is interpreted as the time of attribution of profit and loss, in the event that an enterprise acquires assets from a person with a special relationship and uses and benefits from them as its owner, the tax authorities cannot at all know whether the enterprise obtained profit from the completion of acquisition by prescription, and where the enterprise is transferred by filing a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the registered titleholder after the lapse of the exclusion period of imposition of corporate tax, it cannot avoid any unreasonable reason that makes it impossible to prevent gratuitous transfer of assets between persons with a special relationship from being subject to acquisition by prescription.

(5) Therefore, the time when each of the instant real estate was reverted to the Plaintiff should be deemed as September 28, 2010, when the judgment of transfer of ownership based on the completion of prescription period became final and conclusive. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit on the premise that the period of completion of prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession of each of the instant real estate ought to be deemed as the time when

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.