Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Collection

The plaintiff's claim is fully accepted.

Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Daejeon District Court 2016-Gu Partnership-105274 ( October 29, 2017),

Then, on February 11, 2010, the Plaintiff made a rescission of the agreement, and accordingly, on February 11, 2010, USD 30 million to D 1).

D. On February 12, 2010, D withdrawn the claim for the payment of the instant purchase price.

6) Enforcement, etc. of pledge rights to the instant shares of DD

A) D on October 12, 2010, by enforcing a pledge on the instant shares (17,400,000 shares)

8 December 8 of the same year, after acceptance of the shares of this case, a conversion into equity and a conversion into equity

Erest Bael Co., Ltd. L.C. this is the International Equivestsor L.L.

He transferred to ‘IEI'.

B) On March 21, 2014, the IAEA has a special asset investment trust with the entire shares of the instant case on the private equity fund.

92.6 billion won, and D on April 9 of the same year, D sales costs pursuant to the contents of the cancellation of the agreement in this case.

( Brokerage Fee, advisory fee, tax and public charge, etc.) 75 billion won out of the net proceeds of sale limited to 76,595,709,051

The Plaintiff paid KRW 957,425,430, which is 60% of the excessive portion, to the Plaintiff.

C) On the other hand, the defendant's stock (17,400,000 shares) in the electronic simplified statement for non-listed stocks

According to the contract date of this case, on December 5, 2007, the appraised value of which as of December 5, 2007 is KRW 80,509,800,000.

On January 29, 2010, the date of termination of agreement, the appraised value is KRW 79,257,00,000.

D. The original terms and conditions of the contract as penalty or compensation paid in the Republic of Korea with the agreement amount of this case

whether the payment constitutes a "money received in excess of damages to the payment itself"

1) Relevant legal principles

only when income is generated under the nature of domestic source income, so it can be taxed;

even if penalty or indemnity is paid due to default, termination or cancellation of the pledge, such penalty or indemnity shall be paid.

penalty or penalty received in excess of the amount of the loss, not by taxation of all other income; or

Only compensation and other income subject to taxation, therefore Article 132 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

10 'Damage exceeding the damages to the payment itself which is the contents of the present contract' as set forth in paragraph 10.

'Positive damage' such as loss or decrease of existing benefits due to the other party's default;

not the above affirmative damage, i.e. the amount paid to the other party to the contract beyond the above affirmative damage.

'negative loss of opportunity, etc. suffered by not using it in another place' means 'negative loss, etc.'

Constitutional Court Order 208HunBa79 Decided February 25, 2010 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008HunBa79, Feb. 25, 201

The increase in net assets in excess of its own preservation, as the ordinary performance profit to be earned by such act;

the level of compensation or restitution for the actual loss; and

Compensation shall not constitute other income.

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence No. 8 and all pleadings are held in the above facts of recognition.

aggregate of the following facts and circumstances known to the public, the consolidation of this case

such terms and conditions of the present contract under section 132(10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

It does not constitute a "money being compensated in excess of damages to the level itself."

A) D, where the original contract of this case was fulfilled as it was, D, the buyer,

Until December 20, 2007, the due date for payment, in lieu of the transfer of the corporate bonds of this case, was December 20, 207.

US$ 83 million, interest at the rate of 5.73% per annum until the purchase date, and the plaintiff's expenses.

(2) However, the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the Plaintiff’s purchase price payment obligation on March 20, 2008 and the same year.

4. 21. The deadline for the payment of price was extended, and the plaintiff fails to pay the purchase price under an agreement even thereafter.

Accordingly, around September 2008, the first and second amendment agreements of this case were made, and the amendment agreement was made in the course of the amendment agreement.

The remaining agreed sale price, excluding USD 6 million paid, shall not be paid.

The plaintiff on January 8, 2010, after filing a lawsuit for the claim for the payment of the purchase price of this case, was sold to D.

US$ 94,706,731.5 and 15% per annum from June 27, 2008 to June 27, 2008; and

The duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

was sentenced to the judgment of 'I'. After that, the plaintiff and D are subject to the cancellation of the agreement in this case.

Tart has become unable to receive USD 94,706,731.5 and damages for delay thereof;

In addition, the corporate bonds of this case, together with the payment of USD 30 million among the agreed amounts of this case, are paid.

They were held.

B) Therefore, at the time of the cancellation of the instant agreement, USD 30 million among the instant agreed amounts and USD 2) and the instant agreement

The agreement of this case by comparing USD 94,706,731.5 with the total value of the corporate bonds;

Whether USD 30 million out of the gold brings about an increase in net assets in excess of the damages of D themselves.

D. However, in light of the following circumstances, D must examine the Plaintiff:

Compensation for losses caused by reasons attributable to it or the level of restitution has been paid.

I would like to say.

1. According to the balance sheet of EE B.V., cash assets of EE B.V. end of the year 2007.

Warrant 1,939,539, 2,018,639 as of the end of 2008, and the cancellation of the Agreement in this case

According to the contents, D shall sell to a third party the shares of this case offered as security for the corporate bonds of this case.

The agreement was made to enforce the pledge in a separate manner, which is the principle of the corporate bond itself.

There is a reason to confirm that the possibility of the gold repayment has been extremely low.

② An electronic simplified statement on unlisted stocks of this case offered as security for the corporate bonds of this case

under this subsection, the value of the shares of this case as of January 29, 2010, the date of cancellation of the agreement of this case, shall be the value of the shares of this case

Amounting to KRW 79,257,00,000, which is equivalent to USD 94,706,731.5 of the sales balance ($ 29,000)

US dollars 1 = 1,157 won = 94,706,731.5 ¡¿ 1,157 won = 109,575,688,345 won)

(3) The shares of this case at the time of the cancellation of the agreement

of the same result as the full repayment of the balance of the purchase and sale, even if performed;

It is judged that the situation was difficult.

③ In the instant case, the criminal judgment on April 24, 2008, which included the instant put option, as well as the said agreement in breach of trust.

On June 9, 2008, the road works were finalized and notified that the instant put option agreement is invalid.

The actual value of the corporate bonds in this case was lost.

④ The Plaintiff and D had the instant shares as a significant security at the time of rescission of the instant agreement.

Although it was scheduled to dispose of the shares of this case, whether the shares of this case will be actually disposed of, or if disposed,

In a situation where it is difficult to predict a long time for the Plaintiff to pay the purchase price;

30,000,000 dollars ($ 1,000,000) out of the amount agreed in this case, in response to the loss suffered T =

1,157 won, USD 30,000 x USD 1,157 = 34,710,000,000) after calculating them, and making compensation thereafter.

D 60% of the remainder of the net proceeds of sale exceeding 75 billion won after disposing of the shares of this case.

to pay to the Plaintiff the risk of the possibility of disposing of the shares of this case.

In other words, it seems that the interests of both parties are to be the same.

⑤ In fact, the instant shares were sold in KRW 92.6 billion on March 21, 2014, and DD had been sold in the same year.

4. 9. The Plaintiff’s net sales price of KRW 76,595,709,051, which is 60% of the excess amount of KRW 75 billion.

957,425,430 Won by paying 957,425,430, Daehan finally acquired after the rescission of the instant agreement.

Amount of the instant agreement USD 30 million out of the amount agreed upon, and KRW 75 billion out of the net proceeds from the sale of the shares of this case (2010. 20

2. USD 1,157.50 won = USD 1,157.50, USD 75,000,000,/1,57.50 won =

US$ 64,794,816.4) and 638,283,620 won, 40% of the excess ($ 64,794,816.4) and the base rate for sale as of February 11, 2010

US$ 1 = 1,157.50 = 638,283,620 won/1,157.50 = 551,432.9)

USD 95,346,249.3 ($30,000 + USD 64,794,816.4 + USD 551,432.9) Trading balance.

USD 94,706,731.5,000,000,000.

6) The Defendant continues to hold the instant corporate bonds even after DD’s rescission of the agreement.

In light of the fact that there is an economic value of the corporate bonds of this case from the time of the sales contract of this case.

Until the time of termination of agreement, it is insufficient to deem that this agreement has fallen to the level;

the agreement of this case exceeds the damages to the payment itself which is the original terms of the contract.

However, the existence and scope of active damage of DD is claimed as compensation for the year.

D, not solely on the basis of the value decline of the corporate bond itself, is not determined by D, but solely on the basis of D,

The contract price that could have been obtained when the contract of this case was implemented and at the time of termination of the contract.

It is reasonable to compare the value of the company bond of this case with the value of the company bond of this case, and the defendant as the company bond of this case

In case of cancellation of a sales contract for assets for which it is difficult to compute the market price, the seller shall:

Since it is difficult to determine the existence and scope of active damage at the time of cancellation, the agreement of this case

After the buyer pays damages to the seller for the first time, the buyer later pays the seller for the purpose of sale.

the sale price of each other after the realization of the material and the realization of its economic value;

(C) If there is a possibility that it is reasonable to form a legal relationship under paragraph (1).

The sum of the proceeds from sale settled after the seller received damages and realization to the seller;

There is a minor difference between the value of the seller and the price of the contract that the seller could have obtained.

If you appear, the damages exceed the damages on the payment itself, which is the contents of the original contract.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that it is money to compensate for damages, the defendant's assertion

It is difficult to accept.

E. Sub-decision

The agreement of this case is within the term "this contract" under Article 132 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

It is called "money paid in excess of damages to the payment itself."

Therefore, without examining the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion, the instant case cannot be seen as having been examined.

Each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the agreed amount falls under other income is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims are reasonable, it is decided to accept them and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.

Administrator of AA company of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Corporation

XX Head of tax office

on April 27, 2017

on October 29, 2017

1. Details of the disposition;

(a)CC company (hereinafter referred to as “CC company”) ;

c) The commencement of rehabilitation procedures on April 7, 2015, as a company engaged in civil engineering, construction, construction, etc.

The rehabilitation procedure is currently in progress after being able to do so.

B. On December 5, 2007, the Plaintiff’s D Group Global Market Social Co., Ltd., a U.S. Detetrawa.

The term "DD" is limited to "Citro Group Glbal Mke L.C. hereinafter referred to as "CD".

C) Between D and D, the Plaintiff’s HH Korea v. Systn Investment, the Netherlands-based HH Korea Ltd.

(Econ Korea Investment Investmentst. B.V. hereinafter referred to as “EEB.V.”) corporate bonds issued by the company (value: US:

US dollars 83 million US dollars, the agreed rate of 5.73% per annum, and the maturity amount: US$1

(1) The issue price of the corporate bond of this case shall be US$ 83 million, 2.0 million.

Interest based on the rate inherent in the agreement of 5.73% per annum by the purchase date, and 3 Plaintiff’s expenses (which may be negotiated);

The sales contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") to purchase the total amount in the future.

(1) concluded the agreement.

C. The plaintiff is equivalent to US$2 million on September 4, 2008, as the purchase price of the corporate bonds of this case to DD.

on September 5 of the same year, US$5 million in total, and September 25 of the same year, September 25, 2000 US$5 million in total.

r. On November 14, 190,000 US dollars 1,000 in total,000 US dollars 5,000 each, but the funds director

The remainder of the purchase price was not paid due to aggravation.

D. DD’s lawsuit seeking payment of the purchase price of the corporate bonds of this case against the Plaintiff (Seoul Northern District)

The court 2009Gahap192, hereinafter referred to as "the claim for the payment of the purchase price in this case") filed a lawsuit;

In the above case, the court of the first instance held on January 8, 2010 that "the plaintiff," USD 94,706,731.5, and the plaintiff, at the same time, to D.

From June 27, 2008, the court rendered a judgment that "the payment of damages for delay shall be made from June 27, 2008 to the date of full payment."

E. The Plaintiff and D shall agree to cancel the instant sales contract on January 29, 2010 (hereinafter “instant case”).

The following agreements have been drawn up while cancelling the agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "cancellation of agreement"), and the plaintiff on February 2010:

11. US dollars 30 million to D (hereinafter the above paragraph (c) above 6 million US dollars paid as a purchase price;

The sum of USD 36 million and the above amounts was paid to USD 36 million.

(c)

F. The Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office: (a) integrated corporate tax against the Plaintiff from December 27, 2013 to March 18, 2014;

As a result of the investigation, foreign corporations subject to withholding under the Corporate Tax Act are located in the Republic of Korea.

On September 3, 2014, the director of the tax office notified the result of the investigation that it constitutes source income.

Corporate tax amounting to KRW 9,160,004,320 on the domestic source income of a foreign corporation in the business year 2010 (A)

The revised and notified the tax amount of KRW 832,718,575 (including the tax amount of KRW 832,718,575) (hereinafter referred to as the "first disposition").

(g) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall conduct a comprehensive audit with the commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office.

Section 30 million U.S. dollars paid to D by the Plaintiff to D according to the agreement of this case

Inasmuch as an agreement cannot be returned even if it is concluded, the Plaintiff’s amount of withholding tax is reasonable.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s source income taxation is deemed to have been paid with the amount of the instant agreed money.

Standard 53,385,428,766 Won 53,385,428,766

The Secretary General, on March 3, 2015, shall pay to the Plaintiff corporate tax on the domestic source income of foreign corporations in the business year 2010.

2,584,370,000 won (including additional tax of KRW 234,970,000) was corrected and notified (hereinafter referred to as "the second disposition of this case").

In this case, "each of the dispositions in this case" was referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case".

H. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition No. 1 with the Board of Audit and Inspection on the ground that:

On June 30, 2016, a request for review was dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on May 29, 2015 to the Tax Tribunal.

However, on September 29, 2016, the appeal on disposition was dismissed.

I. On the other hand, as Asan Tax Office was newly established on February 26, 2015, it has jurisdiction over the location of the Plaintiff.

The president was changed from the director of the tax office in the astronomical House to the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including each number);

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The main assertion as to each of the dispositions of this case

The agreement amount of this case is losses on the payment itself which is the original contract terms of the sales contract of this case

for the purpose of compensating for damage, the penalty or indemnity, which is a domestic source income of a foreign corporation, shall be applicable

subsection (b) of this section.

2) Preliminary assertion as to the disposition No. 1 of this case

Even if the agreement amount of this case constitutes penalty or damages that are the domestic source income of a foreign corporation.

Even if the plaintiff did so, US$50,000 paid to D on September 25, 2008 and November 14, 2008

USD 500,000,000,000 due to the delay of payment of the purchase price under the instant sales contract

(1) The damages for delay have been paid by the Corporation, and the damages for delay have been paid by the Corporation and the damages for delay have been paid by the Corporation.

October 2008, which is the day following the due date for the payment of the tax amount (the tenth day of the month following the month to which the date of withholding belongs).

11. Any objection made on September 3, 2014 after the lapse of five years from December 11 of the same year;

No. 1 Disposition is unlawful.

3) Preliminary assertion as to the disposition No. 2 of this case

Even if the agreement amount of this case constitutes penalty or damages that are the domestic source income of a foreign corporation.

even if the plaintiff did not agree to pay corporate tax on D's domestic source income.

at least once, the tax base shall be based on the instant agreement and shall be the total amount, including the tax amount.

Since gros-up is prohibited from reverse production, the disposition of this case No. 2 is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

Each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts, the following facts are recognized:

1) Conclusion of the Convention on Capital Investment in the GG Development

A) The Korea Highway Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Highway Corporation”) shall be from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on November 30, 1990.

An order to establish a plan for securing investment funds, such as a plan for developing surrounding tourism, is issued on August 29, 196.

GGG located in the Sil-ri, Mag-ri, Sil-ri, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do with approval for the basic plan for resting facilities in GGG.

13,000 square meters by investing 40 billion won in the nearest public waters and reclaiming 113,000 square meters; and

A rest area shall be constructed and invested in 160 billion won in two stages, and hotel, sea water pool, marine play facilities, etc.

46,000 square meters after the increase in demand after construction, and so-called so-called pedagoging for further reclamation and development;

The Do Development Project was promoted.

B) However, as the project was delayed due to the MFF foreign exchange crisis, road works are civil servants through inducement of foreign capital.

HH International Act, a Singapore corporation, on June 28, 199, will take place as a project implementation method, and HH International Act

Litdi (Econ International Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'EON') and II Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'N')

GeneralG sea by selecting a consortium as a private business entity and selecting a consortium as a private business entity;

The Agreement on the Development of Complex Tourist Rest Facilities shall be concluded, and on August 20, 199, the GG dog pursuant to the said Convention.

The GG Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GG Development") was established.

C) Thereafter, ECON is its subsidiary on May 16, 2001 63.9% of the shares of GG development.

Con Scon Korea Inc. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as “EE” by Ecron Korea Inc. Ltd.

D) be transferred to, and appointed on December 14, 2001, F as the representative director of the GG Development.

Investor in the GG Development Project, including sale of EE shares held by ECON, to F

The negotiation authority has been granted to attract participants.

D) However, F means the acquisition by oneself of the EE shares owned by ECON, and directly GG.

on March 20, 2002, the development project is to be promoted, and on March 20, 200, the SK (JK) of his English name.

JK established a food company (hereinafter referred to as the "JK"), and around that time, JK EE owned by ECON.

on November 26, 2002, appointed as representative director of EE on November 26, 2002, for acquisition by transfer of 53% of the equity interest, and on November 2002

27. EE had E take over 26.1% of the shares in the GG development from II Construction, thereby entirely taking over the management rights of the GG development.

e) F from August 2003, the project cost of the GG development project was approximately KRW 40,000,000 from August 2003

corporate bonds equivalent to US$300,000 have been issued in a foreign country to raise funds, and the Commercial Act

the total amount of the bonds that a corporation may issue shall exceed four times the existing net value of the

of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 10600, Apr. 14, 2011)

Article 470(1) of the Commercial Act, the capital stock of the GG Development at the time is merely ten billion won, and its capital is merely ten billion won.

U.S. dollars 83 million U.S. dollars was required to increase the level required.

The failure to procure this.

(f) the request is made to the OOF, the president of the road works for which the F had difficulty in doing so.

As a result, road works are issued by the GG Development among ECON and EE on January 16, 2004.

90% out of the shares of 5,000 won shall be subscribed for 20 million won, and EE shall take over 90% after January 31, 2009

26.1% of the shares of GG development in EE within 90 days.

US$ 1500,000,000,000 shall be purchased, and the appraised value of the shares by the appraisal institution shall be 1 US$1

If the purchase price is less than $5 million, the share that EE has until it reaches the purchase price.

In this case, appraisal rights (hereinafter referred to as "the subject of appraisal") to provide additional or full identification

The main content of which is to grant put options to E; GG development capital investments, the main content of which is to give them to E;

The relevant Convention (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") entered into an put option agreement.

G) Meanwhile, EE B.V. established by EE on June 2004 for capital investment in GG development.

At that time, all rights and obligations under the instant put option agreement were succeeded from EE.

2) Issuance of the corporate bonds of this case

A) EE B.V. was unable to obtain a loan for capital increase from a domestic bank group, DD

D group global market, which is an affiliate of the D group global market, through the issuance of corporate bonds by making such D group global market as a company issuing the

GG development shares owned by EE B.V. (hereinafter referred to as “G development shares”)

'the shares of this case' and put options of this case are set up a pledge and issued on February 17, 2005.

The corporate bonds of this case were issued in US$ 83 million.

B)Korea Post and the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union have acquired the corporate bonds of this case.

B. Failure to obtain written consent from road works on the provision of security of the instant shares

D. The Ministry of Information and Communication on August 11, 2005, when the issue has occurred and the audit has been conducted.

Korea Post and Korean Teachers' Credit Union shall not pay the principal, interest, costs, etc. of the corporate bonds of this case

The company purchased the corporate bonds of this case.

3) Conclusion of the instant sales contract

A) Press reports such as that road works have entered into a preferential contract with EE, and 2005

As a result of the prosecution investigation conducted from around June of each year, F on July 29, 2005, the special Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

As for the crime of violation of the Act (Misappropriation of Trust), the record shall be August 10, 2005 on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

As a crime of violation of law (Misappropriation of trust), the Plaintiff's sexual completion, the president of the Plaintiff, is the Seoul Central District Court as the crime of giving property in breach of trust on August 10, 2005.

Court Decision 2005Gohap686, etc. Each of the above courts was prosecuted by the FF on February 6, 2006

In collusion, the act of entering into this case’s put option agreement constitutes occupational breach of trust

On the other hand, the right of construction of the GG Development Project to F in the second stage of the GG Development Project is recognized as crime;

Lending 12 billion won in return for illegal solicitation such as requesting to be granted shall be deemed as giving property in breach of trust.

The court found the defendant guilty.

B) On the other hand, there is a failure to raise funds for the GG Development Project and criminal cases.

The GGG development project could not proceed properly from January 2006, D, interested parties, from January 2006;

The plaintiff, road works, and F shall hold meetings to discuss how to promote the business normalization and re-promotion;

(C) However, the Red Chang-type Standing Director of Deloitte who participated in the above meeting is above the above.

After the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, "the plaintiff's corporate bonds of this case" to interested parties on November 2, 2007.

With respect to the purchase proposal, including the invalidation of put options agreements in this case with respect to road works.

e-mail containing the content, etc. was sent.

C) Thereafter, on November 9, 2007, the Plaintiff issued the corporate bonds of this case to DD on November 9, 2007 ① US US 8,300.

US$, ② 5.73% per annum on the date of purchase, and ② 5.73% per annum on the rate, u3000, ③ Plaintiff’s expenses

(B) on or before December 20, 2007, in the aggregate of the amounts eligible for negotiations, and thereafter, shall be any

As of December 5, 2007, the period of acceptance was determined to the effect that it would be possible to make an offer.

D) On November 21, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the instant corporate bonds at the meeting with DD on November 21, 2007

It is necessary to negotiate with road works on put options.The meeting of interested parties with which road works are past.

of this case’s put options may be declared invalid, so that they may not impose a burden on the negotiation.

The statement was made to the effect that it was "we ordered."

E) On the other hand, the Seoul High Court is dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance court such as FF, Track, Macchi, etc.

Although an appeal was filed under No. 2006No417, the above court filed on November 23, 2007

F. F. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor are accepted, and the decision of the first instance court is delivered with respect to F.

The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes for Korea Post and Korean Teachers' Credit Union

The part of innocence as to the violation of rate (Fraud) shall be reversed, and the FF shall be found guilty.

The grounds for appeal were rejected.

F) D on December 5, 2007, by accepting the above offer of the Plaintiff, D and Plaintiff Private.

Accordingly, the sales contract of this case was concluded.

4) Amendment of the instant sales contract

A) On December 18, 2007, after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was on December 18, 2007.

EEB.V. The purpose of acquiring outstanding bonds is to determine financial investment for bond investment.

v. management rights for GG development and strategic implementation for prompt implementation of GG development projects;

EE B.V.A. for the raising of business funds related to the secondary development project of the GG.

upon acceptance by us of bonds ($83 million) issued in February 2005 and thereafter any consideration for the development of GG.

2. To ensure the acceptance of bonds and the acquisition of management rights set forth above;

We review the Capital Investment Convention and the Credit Support Convention entered into previously with your Corporation.

I sent a letter to the effect that you would have to consult to alleviate the burden of your Corporation.

(c)

B) Meanwhile, on March 20, 2008, the Plaintiff failed to prepare funds for the purchase of the corporate bonds of this case. D on March 20, 2008

upon request of D to extend the payment deadline on March 31, 2008, Daehan consents thereto.

had been.

C) After that, the Plaintiff failed to pay the price by March 31, 2008, and again made April 2008.

21. Daehan's request for the extension of the payment deadline on May 31, 2008, and Daehan's request

In consent, D's expenses out of the purchase price of the corporate bonds of this case shall be US$ 1,096,955.61.

was determined.

D) On the other hand, FF and OOs, etc. are dissatisfied with the above appellate judgment and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10719 Decided 2007Do109

The appeal was filed by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed each of the appeals on April 24, 2008, FF and the 000s.

The above judgment became final and conclusive after a judgment was rendered.

E) On June 9, 2008, the EEB.V. road works are recorded in accordance with the above Supreme Court decision.

Since the recognition of the F F's conspiracy and occupational breach of trust have been confirmed, the contract of put options in this case

Details that “the notification of invalidation as a juristic act contrary to good morals or social order” is “the notification thereof.

The certified mail was sent.

F) Thereafter, DD on September 3, 2008, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, on September 4, 2008, shall be U.S. dollars between the Plaintiff and D on September 4, 2008.

US$ 2 million, US$ 3 million until September 5, 2008, US$ 10 million until September 12, 2008,

Until December 31, 2008, at least 40 million US dollars shall be paid respectively, and each of the above payments shall be made by the Association of this case.

To cover the sales price of the bonds in relation to the issue price of the bonds and to the nominal issue price.

5.74% Interest shall apply, and the remaining principal and interest shall be paid by December 31, 2009, on condition that the interest shall be paid;

If each of the above installments is not paid by the above payment date, the above agreement shall automatically be made.

of this case’s sales contract’s terms and conditions are null and void and have priority to such terms and conditions.

The agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the first amendment agreement of this case") was made.

G) In accordance with the first amendment agreement of this case, the Plaintiff: D.D. 2 million US dollars on September 4, 2008; and

US dollars 3 million US dollars on September 5, 2008, respectively, but US$ 10 million on September 12, 2008

payment has not been made.

H) Accordingly, DD was divided between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on September 17, 2008 into USD 10 million.

US dollars 5 million US dollars and damages for delay until September 19, 2008, the remainder US$ 5 million, and

The damages for delay shall be paid by September 25, 2008, respectively, but the damages for delay shall be as of September 365 of one year and three hundred and sixty-five days.

interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum on the date of delay, and the plaintiff

(1) If each of the above installments is paid by the above payment date, the first amendment agreement of this case

agreement which contains a statement that it will not automatically invalidate (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement of this case")

The amendment agreement was made.

I) However, the plaintiff, however, to DD on September 25, 2008, USD 500,000, November 14, 2008, and USD 500,000.

US$00 was paid only.

5) The lapse of filing a claim for payment of the sales price of this case

A) In the lawsuit claiming the payment of the purchase price of this case filed by DD against the Plaintiff, the court

was determined as shown in the note.

- The purchase price of the corporate bonds of this case is the following: ① the issue price of the corporate bonds of this case is US$ 83 million, ② the issuance price of the corporate bonds of this case

The agreement between February 18, 2005 and May 31, 2008, which is the rate of 5.73% per annum from February 18, 2005 to May 31, 2008.

US$ 15,609,775.89 [83,000,000 x 0.0573 x 3 x 103/365] and 3rd expenses not incurred in D.

US$ 9,706,731.5 ($ 83,000,000 +15,609,775.89 +1,096,95.61) in total, such as US$1,096,95.61);

US$ 2 million paid by the Plaintiff on September 4, 2008 and US$ 3 million paid on September 5, 2008 in the instant case

Pursuant to the first amendment agreement, the issue price out of the purchase price of the corporate bonds of this case is appropriated for the repayment thereof.

The sales price of corporate bonds in this case remains US$94,706,731.5 ($99,706,731.5-2,000,000-3,000,000).

- Meanwhile, 100,000 US dollars on September 25, 2008, and 500,000 US dollars on November 14 of the same year to D 100

evidence to acknowledge that there has been an agreement or designation with respect to the obligation extinguished by payment of US$30

Unless otherwise, the above US$1 million was transferred to US$94,706,731.5 of the corporate bonds of this case

The 26th day from June 1, 2008 to June 26th of the same year, based on the annual 15% per annum under the 2nd amendment agreement.

[1,000,000/(94,706,731.5 x 0.15/365)] The damages for delay have been appropriated for the repayment of damages for delay.

- Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff shall make to D the above US dollars 94,706,731.5 and 2008.

6. The obligation to pay damages for delay from 27. to the date of full payment.

B) On December 23, 2009, before the sentence of the above judgment was rendered, D, exercising put options in place on the road works.

However, on January 25, 2010, the road works were sent to the effect that they did not comply with D's exercise of put options.

C) The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment on January 12, 2010, but on January 29, 2010, D and this.