As the Fund constitutes a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s Note, which is written on different premise, is not accepted.

In full view of the above circumstances, the Fund constitutes a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act because it constitutes a foundation with basic property for the public interest under Article 13(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which falls under a non-profit domestic corporation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

Article 13 (Organization Deemed a Juristic Person)

2014Guhap53575

○○○ and 14

○ Head of Tax Office and 8

June 26, 2015

August 18, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

[Attachment 1. The "the date of disposition" in the list of rejection orders of corporate tax for the business year of 2008 as of the corresponding date stated in "the plaintiff" for each plaintiff as of the corresponding date stated in "the date of disposition of rejection requests of corporate tax for the business year of 2008" as of the corresponding date stated in "the date of disposition of rejection requests of corporate tax for the business year of 2009" for each plaintiff as stated in "the date of disposition of rejection requests of corporate tax for the business year of 209."

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs were changed to “BBBB” by Act No. 6073 of Dec. 31, 1999; hereinafter “Assets Corporation”) established in the AA Corporation (hereinafter “Assets Corporation”).

(hereinafter referred to as the "Fund of this case") is a financial institution that has contributed to the Fund.

B. The Plaintiffs received the profits accrued from the business of the Fund in 2008 and 2009 as shares (hereinafter “shares of this case”) and reported and paid the corporate tax as the total revenue dividends in the business year 2008 and each business year 2009.

C. The grounds that the time when the loss of the shares of this case reverts is transferred to the business year 2007.

Meanwhile, the Defendants filed a claim for correction against each corporate tax base and tax amount in the business year 2008 and the business year 2009. However, the Defendants rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for correction on the ground that the instant dividend does not be subject to exclusion from gross income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal on the instant disposition, but all of which were dismissed by the Tax Tribunal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendants' defense prior to the merits

1) The Plaintiffs once included the amount distributed in the year 2008 of the instant case in the gross income, and thereafter the relevant amount.

Pursuant to Article 104-11 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010), all remainder of education tax, except for education tax, invested in the company with the purpose of credit recovery support and included the amount equivalent to the investment amount in deductible expenses. Accordingly, since tax benefits have already been granted due to the failure to pay corporate tax, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s request for correction cannot be deemed a disposition that infringes legal interests of the Plaintiff, and there

2) The Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion is an assertion that did not go through the pre-trial procedure, and must be dismissed.

B. Determination

1) 구 조세특례제한법 제104조의11 제1항은 '금융기관이 2009. 12. 31.까지 CCCCCC기금으로부터 잔여재산을 반환받아 이를 반환받은 날이 속하는 사업연도의 다음 사업연도 종료일까지 금융소외계층의 신용회복 지원을 목적으로 하는 법인으로서 기획재정부장관이 지정한 법인에 출자하여 주식을 취득하려는 경우 그 반환금 중 출자하려는 금액을 그 반환받은 날이 속하는 사업연도의 소득금액을 계산할 때 손금에 산입할 수 있다'고 규정하고 있고, 위 조항의 '금융소외계층의 신용회복 지원을 목적으로 하는 법인으로서 기획재정부장관이 지정한 법인'은 주식회사 신용회복기금이다. 원고 주식회사 DDDD은 9,621,000,000원을, 주식회사 FFFF은 8,616,000,000원을, 주식회사 GGGG은 55,059,000,000원을, HHHHHHHHHH는 34,059,000,000원을, 주식회사 IIII은 14,403,000,000원을, 주식회사 JJJJ은 14,100,000,000원을, 주식회사 KKKK은 101,040,000,000원을, 주식회사 LLLL은 86,274,000,000원을, 주식회사 MMMM은 5,328,000,000원을, 주식회사 NNNN은 4,545,000,000원을, OOOOOO은 40,617,000,000원을, 주식회사 PPPP은 117,849,000,000원을, QQQQQQ은 102,198,000,000원을, 주식회사 RRRRRR은 6,282,000,000원을, SSSSSSS은 62,466,000,000원을 각 구 조세특례제한법 제104조의11에서 규정하고 있는 금융소외계층의 신용회복 지원을 목적으로 하는 법인에 출연하고, 그 출연금을 손금산입한 사실은 다툼이 없다.

Although the source of the Plaintiffs’ contributions was accounted for as a separate account even if they were to be distributed, and as seen below, the Plaintiffs’ legal nature of the Fund and the timing of attribution of the instant shares may vary if the legal nature and the timing of attribution of the shares vary, and thus, the corporate tax base of the business year 2008 may not be deemed unlawful on the sole ground of the foregoing circumstances.

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 27, the plaintiffs are subject to each disposition of this case.

Although the conjunctive assertion was not made at the time of the request for a trial, it can be acknowledged that the facts were added to the grounds for illegality, as otherwise alleged in the instant conjunctive assertion. However, as long as the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect that did not pass through the previous trial procedure on this part on the ground that the Plaintiffs added a new grounds for illegality in the litigation procedure as long as they were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2977, Oct. 22

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, all of the defendants' defenses prior to the merits cannot be accepted (On the other hand, the defendants included only part of the amount distributed in 2009 in the gross income of the plaintiffs, and there is no ground or ground for calculation to exclude it from the gross income. Thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it was about the merits, but it was about the contents of the merits, and thus it is not separately determined in this part

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary argument

Since the Fund is not a juristic person or an organization treated as a juristic person, the instant shares ought to be handled in accordance with the legal principles as to joint business or trust property. According to such legal principles, the time when the instant shares are reverted is not the business year of 2008 and 2009 that the Plaintiffs actually received but the actual profits accrued during the business year of 2007. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant shares were reverted to the business year of 2008 and 20

2) Preliminary assertion

Even when the time when the plaintiffs received the shares of this case in reality, the shares of this case in 2008 should be appropriated first for the principal of the plaintiffs' contribution. Therefore, the portion of the return of the principal of the contribution cannot be deemed as the gross income for the pertinent business year, and thus, the disposition of this case, which received the claim for correction, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Fund was established on November 24, 1997 on the basis of the former Act on the Establishment of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of the Corporation of the Republic of Korea (amended by Act No. 5371 of Aug. 22, 1997) and revised on December 31, 199 as the "Act on the Establishment of Assets and Profit Corporation of the Republic of Korea" (amended by Act No. 6073 of Dec. 31, 1999), and was amended as the "Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of the Republic of Korea and the Establishment of the Korea Asset Management Corporation" (amended by Act No. 10682 of May 19, 201) without distinguishing before and after the amendment of the title of the Act from the "Act", and was established on November 24, 1997. The Fund was created with the contributions of the financial institution of this case from the Corporation and the funds of Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "former Asset Management Corporation Act").

The Government's contributions (if the contributions) to financial institutions in the year, the total contributions (if the contributions)

568,000,000,00568,000,000,000,000

573,380,000,00573,380,000,000,000

199 573,380,000,00573,380,000,000

200 573,380,000,00573,380,000,000

2001 573,380,000,00573,380,000,000

2002 573,380,000,00573,380,000,000

Contribution of public funds 2003 573,380,000,003,505,666,000,004,079,046,000,000,000

2004 573,380,000,003,505,666,000,004,079,046,000,000,000

2005 573,380,000,003,505,666,000,004,079,046,000,000,00

2006 573,380,000,003,505,666,000,004,079,046,000,000,00

2007 573,380,000,00505,666,000,001,079,046,000,000,000,000 public funds shall be returned to 3 trillion won

208 Return of 573,380,000,00573,380,000,000 0.5 trillion won

2) The instant fund paid KRW 24,002,00,000 for the taxable year 1999, KRW 160,011,000 for the taxable year 2008, and KRW 64,100,000 for the corporate tax for the taxable year 2009.

(2) From 2000 to 2002, corporate tax was not paid because there was no income or the tax base was zero won, and it was non-taxation period from 2003 to 2007).

3) Following the amendment of Article 2(3) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act on December 21, 2007, the Fund decided to distribute residual property to a funding institution. The Fund paid shares to the Plaintiffs in 2008 and 2009 as follows. At the time, the Asset Management Committee decided not to pay a separate interest at the time of repayment of the Fund.

The amount distributed in 2008 to the Plaintiff’s Investment in 2008

DD5,650,00,000 won 9,670,568,000 won 1,047,878,000 won

FFF5,060,000,000 Won 8,660,721,000

GGGG32, 330,000,000 won 5,336,185,000 won 5,96,087,00 won

HHHHHH 20,000,000,000 won 34,232,098,000 won 3,709,303,000 won

IIII10,220,00,000 won 17,492,602,000 won 1,895,454,00 won

J8,280,00,000 Won14,172,08,000 Won1,535,651,000

KK 59,330,00,000 won 101,549,517,000 won 11,03,646,00 won

LLLL50, 660,00,000 won 86,709,903,000 won 9,395,663,00 won

MM3, 130,00,000 won 5,357,323,000 won 580,506,000 won

NN2,670,00,000 won 4,569,985,00 won

OOO23,850,000,000 Won 40,821,776,000

PPP69,200,000,000 won 118,443,057,000 won 12,834,187,00 won

QQQQQQ60,010,000,000원102,713,408,000원11,129,763,000원

RRR3,690,00,000 won 6,315,82,000 won 684,366,000 won

SSS36,680,00,000 won 62,781,66,000 won 6,802,802,861,00 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Judgment on the main argument

1) Order of determination

The Plaintiffs are disputing the time when the shares of this case accrue. The time when the shares of this case accrue.

The issue to be included in the calculation of earnings in a certain business year is connected to the legal nature of the Fund. If legal personality is recognized under the tax law of the Fund, the Fund will revert to the Plaintiffs when it pays the instant shares to the Plaintiffs (However, even if applicable, it is necessary to review the Plaintiffs’ claim that the instant shares should be appropriated first in the principal of the contribution). On the contrary, if it is not recognized as legal personality under the tax law of the Fund, the profits accrued from the Fund will be attributed to the beneficiaries of the Fund, and it should be examined whether the Plaintiffs

2) Legal nature of the instant fund

A) Provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 13 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that if a non-corporate entity is a non-corporate entity, "unregistered association, foundation, or other organization established with permission or authorization from the competent authority, or registered with the competent authority under the laws and regulations," and "unregistered foundation, which has basic property contributed for the purpose of public interest," it shall be deemed a corporation under tax law (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007, which does not distribute profits as above to its members). Such organization constitutes "non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act" (Article 2 (c) of the Corporate Tax Act).

In the case of the Fund of this case, it is established in the Asset Management Corporation under Article 38 of the former Asset Management Corporation Act, which has been raised with the financial resources provided for in Article 39 (1), and it constitutes a foundation with an endowment contributed for public interest in the following light of the following circumstances.

B) There are fundamental assets contributed for the purpose of public interest.

(1) The Fund was established for the efficient settlement of non-performing loans, etc. held by financial institutions (Article 38 of the former Asset Management Corporation Act). Financial resources for the establishment of the Fund shall be raised not only from the financial institutions, such as the Plaintiffs, but also from the funds created by issuing non-performing loan bonds, etc. (Article 39(1) of the former Asset Management Corporation Act). In the case of bonds issued at the expense of the Fund, the Government guarantees the repayment of principal and interest (Article 40(4) of the former Asset Management Corporation Act). The Fund shall designate funds borrowed from the Bank of Korea as government agencies under the Bank of Korea Act (Article 39 of the former Asset Management Corporation Act).

Paragraph 3, Article 40 Paragraph 1), the Fund shall be responsible for its financial resources, not by the Asset Corporation.

(2) The above established funds can be used only for the purposes prescribed in the Asset Management Corporation Act, and the non-performing assets or other interested persons deemed necessary to take over in particular for the public interest can be preferentially acquired with a large effect of liquidation (Article 6(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Asset Management Corporation Act). The Asset Management Corporation shall prepare the settlement of accounts, balance sheets, and income statements concerning the funds, and shall determine the fund operation plan before the fiscal year begins, and shall account the fund separately from the accounting of the Corporation (Articles 42 and 43 of the Asset Management Corporation Act). Such funds shall be operated as a foundation separate from the accounting of the Corporation.

(3) Upon termination of the Fund’s operation, a list of assets and balance sheets of the Fund shall be prepared in advance and the remaining assets shall be returned at the Fund’s contribution rate with the approval of the Committee.

After such report, a statement of accounts shall be prepared and reported to the Committee without delay (Article 2(5) of the Addenda to the Act on the Establishment of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of the Republic of Korea (Article 15511 and Article 3(2) and (3) of the Addenda to the Act on the Establishment of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of the Corporation, and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of the AD Corporation

(4) Sub-determination

Considering the purpose of the establishment of the Fund, methods of financing, restriction on the use of the Fund, and preferential acquisition of non-performing assets due to the need for public interest, the Fund seems to be more for the public interest purpose than merely improving the liquidity and soundness of financial institutions’ disposal of non-performing loans, but rather for ensuring such liquidity and soundness, which can be seen by the majority of the public. Accordingly, the Fund constitutes a case where the basic property contributed for public interest purposes exists.

C) The instant fund has the substance of the Foundation.

Where a foundation is not registered as a foundation, it means a group of property incorporated for a certain nonprofit purpose, which has been established as a unified management body independently from contributors or other specific individuals, but has not yet been registered as a foundation.

As seen above, the Fund is a group of property invested or created by a certain method, and its accounting has been carried out separately from the instant project, and the Fund bears the obligation independently from the instant project for the Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund and the Bank of Korea with respect to loans from the Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund and the Bank of Korea. In addition, as to the grounds, purposes, methods, methods of creation, methods of management and operation, accounting and executive organs, etc. of the Fund, separate articles of incorporation is not required under Articles 38 through 43 of the former

In full view of these circumstances, the Fund is deemed to have the substance of the Foundation.

This is the case.

D) The Fund satisfies the condition that it will not distribute profits to its members.

The Foundation shall be comprised of contributed property and shall be a member of the Foundation.

Therefore, there is no problem of distributing profits to its members due to its nature. This is also the same as the Fund has the substance of the Foundation, so long as it has the substance of the Foundation.

Article 2 (5) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act provides that a person shall return residual property to the contributor after the end of the operation period of the Fund, but this falls under the provision on the reversion of residual property after the dissolution of the Foundation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provision is a provision on the distribution of profits.

E) Meanwhile, the following provisions are premised on the premise that the instant fund is a corporation under tax law.

○ The Fund is deemed to have been designated as a government agency under the Bank of Korea Act with respect to the money borrowed from the Bank of Korea (Article 39(3) of the former Asset Management Corporation Act). The term "government agency" means a corporation that performs public projects or functions for the Government in the production, purchase, sale or distribution (Article 85 of the former Bank of Korea Act (amended by Act No. 5491 of Dec. 31, 1997).

Under the premise that the funds established by the Act and subordinate statutes are one of the organizations deemed corporations under the Corporate Tax Act, and the funds shall be allowed to include the reserves for the proper purpose business in deductible expenses (Article 29(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 56(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

Article 2 (1) 8 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 17826, Dec. 30, 2002; however, Article 2 (1) 8 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, on the premise that the Fund is a non-profit corporation, considers the business related to the acquisition and liquidation of non-performing loans through the

Article 34(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 61(2)19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Assets, etc. of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Non-Performing Assets, Etc. (limited to Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund) provide that where the Asset Corporation (limited to Non-Performing Loan Resolution Fund) appropriates allowance for bad debts as deductible expenses, it shall be included in deductible expenses within the scope of a certain percentage. The above provision is meaningful in the accounting of the Fund because the assets corporation and the Fund are separated from the accounts of the Fund. However, the inclusion in deductible expenses is based

F) Sub-decision

In full view of the above circumstances, the Fund constitutes a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act on the ground that it constitutes a foundation with basic property contributed for the purpose of public interest under Article 13(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

E. Determination as to the conjunctive assertion

The Plaintiffs, even if they were deemed to have a corporate personality of the Fund of this case, are liable for tax payment.

The amount distributed in 2008 is the principal of the contribution, and it is not reasonable to include it in the gross income as it is appropriated as the principal.

As seen earlier, the method of raising funds of this case consists of ① the contributions of financial institutions such as the plaintiffs, ② the funds created by the issuance of insolvent reorganization fund bonds, ③ loans from the Bank of Korea. Among them, funds created by the issuance of insolvent reorganization fund bonds and loans from the Bank of Korea are premised on the full return of the funds in consideration of the nature of the funds. However, the contributions of financial institutions are distinguishable from the two methods of raising funds in that they are not premised on the repayment of the funds, but are expected to be returned according to Article 2(5) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act.

In addition, even if the return is scheduled pursuant to Article 2 (5) of the Addenda to the former Asset Management Corporation Act;

In other words, on the premise that residual property exists, the ratio of contribution should be considered as one of the criteria for disposal, and the ratio of contribution should be considered as one of the criteria for disposal. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the nature of the allocation of the residual property of the Fund of this case is strong rather than the return of the principal of contribution. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion on a different premise is rejected.

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' arguments are not accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.