Cho Jae-201-west-2267 ( December 28, 2012)

The principal and interest shall be appropriated according to whether there is a special agreement between the obligee and the obligor on the appropriation of performance.

If there is a special agreement between the creditor and the debtor on the repayment of the loan and interest, the principal may be collected first by the special agreement, but if not, the interest shall be deemed collected first and shall be appropriated as the income amount of the corporate tax.

2013Guhap5418 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA Bank

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

October 11, 2013

November 1, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005, Sept. 10, 2010 against the Plaintiff is revoked in excess of the KRW OOO in the imposition disposition of KRW 2006, Mar. 2, 201; the imposition disposition of KRW OO in excess of the KRW 200, Mar. 2, 201; the imposition disposition of KRW OO in the business year 2007, Mar. 2, 2011; and the imposition disposition of KRW OO in excess of the KRW 20, Jan. 10, 201, the imposition disposition of KRW 200, etc. of KRW OOO in the business year 208.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/25 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff for the business year 2005, which was September 10, 2010, exceeds the KRW KRW OO in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2006, exceeding the KRW OOO in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2006, exceeding the KRW OOOO in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007, exceeding KRW 200, and exceeding the KRW OOO in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007, March 2, 201, and exceeding the KRW 20,00 in the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 208.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established with the main purpose of providing finance necessary for external economic cooperation, such as export and import, overseas investment, and overseas resources development.

B. 1) The Plaintiff reported and paid the insurance proceeds (hereinafter referred to as the “insurance proceeds of this case”) received from the Korea Export Insurance Corporation (the Korea Export Insurance Corporation: the Korea Export Insurance Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Export Insurance Corporation”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of export insurance, ② Insurance Corporation, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Corporation,” the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, etc. in the case of references to both the guaranteed debt repayment funds, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, etc.) and ③ among the loans classified as credit subject to reorganization, the amount of the guaranteed debt by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, etc., received from the principal debtor in advance as the collection of each principal amount.

2) Since then, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification in relation to the paid-in foreign tax amount, and received the refund of the OOOwon among the corporate tax for the business year 2006, the OOOwon among the corporate tax for the business year 2007, and the OOOwon among the corporate tax for the business year 20

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from June 21, 2010 to August 27, 2010, conducted an integrated investigation of the corporate tax against the plaintiff, found that there was an omission of the interest income that could have been incurred if the payment of the interest was made by performing the accounting of the amount voluntarily collected in violation of Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act even though the plaintiff did not have agreed on the order of appropriation, and included an additional tax for the business year 206, O207, 2000, O207, 205, O208, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for each business year.

Table 1

(unit: Won)

206

Business year

2007

Business year

208

Business year

209

Business year

Total

Insurance Money of this case

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Guarantee Debt Performance Deposit

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Credit subject to reorganization

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

라. 원고는 이에 불복하여 2010. 12. 2. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였는데, 원고가 작성・제출한 심판청구서 표지 중 「⑨ 통지된 사항 또는 처분의 내용(과세처분인 경우에는 연도, 기분, 세목 및 세액 등을 기재합니다)」란에는 「2005 ~ 2008 연도 법인세 OOOO원 부과처분」이라고 기재되어 있고, 그 뒷면의 청구이유서 중 청구취지에는 「서울지방국세청이 원고에 대한 세무조사 결과 2010. 9. 15. 송달한 고지서(고지서일자 2010. 9. 10.)상 2006 ~ 2009 사업연도 법인세 부과처분 중 '수입이자 누락으로 인한 익금산입액 OOOO원을 없는 것으로 하여 세액을 재계산한다'는 결정을 구합니다」라고 기재되어 있다.

E. On November 22, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a judgment that the Defendant first appropriated the amount received from the principal debtor among the loans classified by BB BB Co., Ltd. as principal and the loans classified as loans subject to reorganization, and determined that the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005, OOOO, 2006, OOOOO, 2007, 2008, OOOOOO, 2008, 2008, 2006 through 2006 through 2009, following the change of the order of appropriation in the order of the principal and interest when the Plaintiff received a partial repayment of the loan, OOOO, and 206 BBB Co., Ltd.’s performance of the guaranteed debt for the business year 2006, and the remaining tax base and tax amount were dismissed.

F. On the other hand, the defendant issued an increase or decrease of corporate tax for the business year 2006 through 2008 after the plaintiff filed a request for judgment, but made an increase or decrease again in accordance with the purport of the above decision by the Tax Tribunal on December 3, 2012, and thereafter, made an increase or decrease again. The details of the corporate tax for the business year 2006 through 2008 are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant issued to the plaintiff for the imposition of corporate tax exceeding the KRW 100,000,000 for the business year 205,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000

Table 2

(unit: Won)

[Corporate Tax for Business Year 2006]

Classification

Date of Correction

Total final tax amount (additional tax)

Notice (Refund) Tax Amount

Original Report

OOO

10

May 20, 2008

OOO

-OOO

20

September 10, 2010

OOO(OOO)

OOO

3j.

March 2, 2011

OOO(OOO)

OOO

400

December 3, 2012

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

[Corporate Tax for Business Year 2007]

Classification

Date of Correction

Total final tax amount (additional tax)

Notice (Refund) Tax Amount

Original Report

OOO

10

May 20, 2008

OOO

-OOO

20

September 10, 2010

OOO(OOO)

OOO

3j.

March 2, 2011

OOO(OOO)

OOO

400

September 9, 2011

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

500

December 3, 2012

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

600

January 16, 2013

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

[Corporate Tax for Business Year 2008]

Classification

Date of Correction

Total final tax amount (additional tax)

Notice (Refund) Tax Amount

Original Report

OOO

10

March 17, 2008

OOO

-OOO

20

September 10, 2010

OOO(OOO)

OOO

3j.

March 7, 2011

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

400

September 9, 2011

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

500

December 3, 2012

OOO(OOO)

-OOO

600

January 10, 2013

OOO(OOO)

OOO

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure on the part of corporate tax for the business year 2005 among the dispositions of this case, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005 among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

살피건대, 위 인정사실에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 2010. 12. 2. 조세심판원에 제출한 심판청구서 표지 중 「⑨ 통지된 사항 또는 처분의 내용(과세처분인 경우에는 연도, 기분, 세목 및 세액 등을 기재합니다)」란에 「2005 ~ 2008 연도 법인세 OOOO원 부과처분」이라고 기재되어 있고, 위 OOOO원은 원고가 2010. 9. 10. 피고로부터 고지받은 2005 내지 2008 사업연도 각 법인세의 세액을 모두 합한 금액인 점, ② 위 심판청구서 표지 뒷면의 청구이유서의 청구취지에 「서울지방국세청이 원고에 대한 세무조사 결과 2010. 9. 15. 송달한 고지서(고지서 일자 2010. 9. 10.)상 2006 ~ 2009 사업연도 법인세 부과처분 중 '수입이자 누락으로 인한 익금산입액 OOOO원을 없는 것으로 하여 세액을 재계산한다'는 결정을 구합니다」라고 기재되어 있기는 하나, 원고가 2010. 9. 10. 피고로부터 고지받은 법인세는 2005 내지 2008 사업연도에 관한 것이므로, 위 청구취지의 '2006 ~ 2009 사업연도' 부분은 '2005 ~ 2008 사업연도'의 오기인 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 조세심판원의 2012. 11. 22.자 결정의 주문에도 2005 사업연도 법인세가 포함되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고는 2005 사업연도 법인세 부분에 관하여 적법한 전심절차를 거쳤다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim as to the principal portion of each disposition of this case

A) The fact that the Insurance Corporation paid the instant insurance money to the Plaintiff is not a subrogation for the principal of and interest on the deferred bills by the Telecommunication Corporation, but a performance of its obligation to pay its insurance money under an export insurance contract. The payment by the Credit Guarantee Fund, etc. to the Plaintiff is not a subrogation for the principal debtor’s obligation, but a performance of its guaranteed obligation. The scope of the performance was determined according to the export insurance contract and the

Therefore, it is lawful for the Plaintiff to appropriate the instant insurance money and the performance of guaranteed liabilities to the obligations stipulated in the export insurance contract and the credit guarantee terms and conditions, and there is no room for adjusting the amount of income by applying Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act thereto. Therefore,

B) There is an agreement between the obligee and the obligor on the satisfaction of an obligation in advance, and if the contents of the agreement are insufficient to extinguish all obligations to the obligee, the obligee’s satisfaction is effective, regardless of the obligee’s declaration of intent to the obligor, in accordance with the order and method as deemed appropriate by the obligee in accordance with the above agreement, as long as the obligee has made an satisfaction of obligation in accordance with the order and method deemed appropriate by itself. Thus, the appropriation made by the bank in accordance with the order and method of the obligor’s declaration of intent to the obligor is lawful in itself. However, Article 13(1) of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions applicable to all credit transactions between the Plaintiff and an unspecified large enterprise obligor, a bank, and the bank, in the event the obligor’s repayment of obligation falls short of the obligor’s full satisfaction of the obligor’s obligation, or the bank makes an appropriation of obligation by proxy under Article 10, the payment shall be made in the order of expenses, interest and principal, but the bank shall be made differently in the order of appropriation within the extent not favorable to the obligor’s obligation.

In addition, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, expenses, interest, and principal should be met in the order of appropriation, and even as not only debtors but also creditors, the order of appropriation can not be designated unilaterally differently from the above legal order. However, if the other party's unilateral designation appears to have reached an implied agreement by failing to raise an objection without delay, the order of appropriation may be acknowledged differently from the order of appropriation. However, the insurance corporation and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund did not raise any objection as to the first appropriation of the insurance money and the guaranteed debt in the principal, and as such appropriation is more favorable to them, there is no reason to raise an objection. Thus, the plaintiff's appropriation has been made implied agreement between the plaintiff, the principal debtor, and the guarantor.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Plaintiff first appropriated the instant insurance money and the guaranteed debt as principal, and there is no room for adjusting the amount of income by applying Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the principal portion of each of the instant dispositions is

2) Claim on the part of additional tax in each of the dispositions in this case

Among each of the dispositions in this case, the penalty tax is illegal since not only the type of penalty tax is different in a tax payment notice, but also the grounds for calculation are not specified.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Republic of ASEAN has carried out national projects for the modernization of communications networks in the self-governing Republic of Baban region located within its territory. On February 16, 1998, the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) entered into an agreement with the Telecommunication Corporation under the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of ASEAN (hereinafter “the Telecommunication Corporation”) to export electric exchange machines and their ancillary equipment (hereinafter “the instant export agreement”) to US$ 15% of the price for the principal and interest of the instant goods (hereinafter “the instant goods”). The remainder of the U.O.S. bonds were paid 70 days from the date on which the contract was signed, and the remainder of the U.O.S. bonds were paid 15% of the price for the instant goods to US$ 50 days from the date on which the payment of the principal and interest of the instant goods was made in installments and the remainder of the U.O.S. bonds were paid in nine days from the date on which the delivery of the goods was completed.

2) According to the instant export contract, in order to demonstrate the obligation to pay the price, the Communications Corporation shall issue and provide toCC or a designated commercial bank with the securities (hereinafter referred to as “an undertaking bill”) to the effect that it promises payment in the form of designation of a bank within 70 days from the date on which the said contract was signed.

3) On August 18, 1998, on the part of the terms and conditions of the export agreement of this case, the Korea Communications Corporation and the Korea Communications Corporation entered into an additional contract with the content of the promissory note partially amended. According to the promissory note issued pursuant to the above additional contract, the Korea Communications Corporation stipulates to the effect that the Korea Communications Corporation promises a person instructed byCC to pay interest of USOO and 4.5% per annum on a yearly basis.

4) With respect to the export contract of this case with the Korea Insurance Corporation on June 23, 1999,CC concluded the insurance contract of this case: ① the insured asCC; ② the beneficiary before the shipment of the goods of this case; ③ the Plaintiff after the shipment of the goods of this case; ③ the insurance value as USOOO within the scope of the principal claim of this case before the shipment of the goods of this case; ④ USOOO within the scope of the principal claim of this case after the shipment; ④ the insurance amount as USOO equivalent to 90% of USOOO which is the insurable value prior to the shipment of the goods of this case; ④ the insurance amount as USOO within the scope of 95% of USOO which is the insurable value prior to the shipment of the goods of this case; ⑤ the insurance period as 14 months prior to the shipment of the goods of this case; ⑤ the export insurance contract of this case from June 14, 199 to May 24, 203 (hereinafter referred to as the "export insurance contract of this case").

5) On June 24, 1999, the Plaintiff loaned USD 00 U.S. dollars (US$ 00 x 0.985) within the scope of US$ 98.5% of the instant annual principal claim toCC as security with the insurance policy and promissory notes, etc. received from Naban Telecommunication Corporation under the export insurance contract concluded betweenCC and the insurance corporation.

6)CC completed all obligations under the instant export agreement.

7) After the foreign exchange crisis,CC announced its restructuring plan on July 19, 199. On July 27, 1999, the Plaintiff purchased a promissory note issued by the Telecommunication Corporation fromCC and entered into a contract to offset the purchase price with the amount of annual non-financial loans toCC. The Plaintiff became a legitimate right holder of the promissory note through endorsement, etc. ofCC.

8) Under the export insurance contract of this case, the Korea Communications Corporation paid 1,2, and 3 annual installments interest to the Plaintiff, the beneficiary of the insurance money under the export insurance contract of this case. However, the Korea Communications Corporation did not pay 0 U.S. dollars, which is the sum of the principal and interest of the 4th annual installments interest and the 5 through 9th annual installments interest (US$ + interest OO$). Accordingly, CC notified the Korea Insurance Corporation that the Korea Communications Corporation did not perform all or part of the principal and interest of the 4 through 9 annual installments interest.

9) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Insurance Corporation for payment of insurance money as the insurance money, but the Insurance Corporation did not pay it. On March 18, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Insurance Corporation for insurance money claim against the Plaintiff under the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap2269, and on November 16, 2005, the Insurance Corporation rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “IOOO and its delay damages are paid to the Plaintiff”.

The Insurance Corporation, which was dissatisfied with the above judgment, appealed as Seoul High Court 2006Na2560, and on August 23, 2006, the Insurance Corporation paid US$OOOO to the Plaintiff on August 23, 2006. 2. The Plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim. 3. The Plaintiff, on September 15, 2006, made a decision in lieu of the adjustment that the damages for delay shall be paid to the Insurance Corporation by September 15, 2006, which became final and conclusive on September 7, 2006.

Accordingly, the plaintiff received US US$ 95% from the insurance corporation, and then appropriated US US US$ 95% for interest ( US US$ 0.95) for principal and US US US US$ 95% of interest bonds ( US US US$ 0.95).

10) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, as a result of the bad debt depreciation with respect to US$ 100, excluding the amount recoverable by the export insurance contract of this case, among the principal US US US US$ + interest US US US$), included the difference between US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US $ 2003, Dec. 1, 2003. The Plaintiff collected US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US US $ 2003 through the above insurance claim claim lawsuit, and included US US US US US US US US US US US US US $ 203,00 as the profit from the collection of depreciation claim.

11) Around December 5, 2006, the Credit Guarantee Fund entered into a credit guarantee agreement with DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD") and DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD") to secure the obligation to be borne by them by receiving loans from the Plaintiff. DD borrowed money from the Plaintiff as security for the credit guarantee agreement of the Credit Guarantee Fund. Article 12 of the Credit Guarantee Clause provides that the credit guarantee agreement shall be as follows:

Article 12 (Extent of Performance of Guaranteed Obligations)

(1) The Credit Guarantee Fund shall discharge the aggregate of the following amounts as surety obligations:

1. The principal that does not exceed the guaranteed amount by multiplying the amount of unpaid loan by the guarantee ratio;

Provided, That where substitute payments for payment guarantee have occurred, substitute payments within the scope of the guaranteed principal amount multiplied by the guarantee ratio;

2. With respect to the amount of the performance under subparagraph 1, the accrued interest at the rate calculated by adding 2% to the standard loan interest rate on the bank account of the creditor with respect to the substitute payment under the proviso to subparagraph 1, if the period during which the repayment period for the installment loan has not yet arrived by the date on which the guaranteed obligation is met: Provided, That with respect to the substitute payment under the proviso to subparagraph 1, the accrued

3. The amount obtained by multiplying the amount prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Credit Guarantee Fund by the ratio of guarantee from among the expenses paid by the creditor to collect the guaranteed loan claims

(2) Where the Fund and other guarantee agencies guarantee the same loan together and the total amount of guarantee balance by each guarantee agency exceeds the balance of loans, notwithstanding paragraph (1) 1, the amount calculated by multiplying the balance of loans by each guarantee agency at the time of a credit guarantee accident by the ratio of guarantee to the amount borne by the Credit Guarantee Fund and the creditor shall be divided in proportion to the total amount of creditor's responsibility share.

(3) If a creditor fails to claim the performance of a guaranteed obligation within the time limit prescribed in paragraph (2) of this Article, notwithstanding paragraph (1) 2, he/she shall not discharge an accrued interest as a guaranteed obligation from the date following the expiration of such time limit until the date of claim.

On September 16, 2005, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation entered into a credit guarantee agreement with EE media corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "E media") and EE media to secure the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff by receiving a loan from the Plaintiff, EE media received a loan from the Plaintiff as a security, and Article 11 of the Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions provide the following.

Article 11 (Extent of Performance of Guaranteed Obligations)

(1) The Korea Technology Finance Corporation shall discharge the aggregate of the following amounts as guaranteed liabilities:

1. The lesser amount between the amount calculated by multiplying the share of fund responsibility and the total sum of the share of creditor responsibility by the ratio of partial guarantee among the amount of unpaid guaranteed loan and the balance of guarantee, which has been appropriated preferentially for the recovery money prescribed in Article 8: Provided, That where substitute payment for a payment guarantee has been incurred, the lesser amount between the amount calculated by multiplying the total sum of the share of fund responsibility and the share of creditor responsibility among the unpaid

2. With respect to the amount discharged under subparagraph 1, the accrued interest at the rate calculated by adding 2% to the standard loan interest rate on the bank account of the creditor with respect to the substitute payment under the proviso to subparagraph 1, if the due date for the repayment of the guaranteed loan has not yet arrived by the day before the discharge of the guaranteed obligation: Provided, That with respect to the substitute payment under the proviso to subparagraph 1, the accrued interest at

3. The amount obtained by multiplying the amount prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation by the ratio of partial guarantee from among the portion of the Fund's liability sharing and the expenses paid by a creditor for collecting the portion of

(2) Where the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and other guarantee agencies guarantee both the same limit transaction loans and the total amount of guarantee balance by guarantee agency exceeds the balance of loans, notwithstanding paragraph (1) 1, the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be met:

1. Where the total amount of loans by case is jointly liable for guarantee between the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and other guarantee agencies, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount to be borne by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and the creditor by the ratio of partial guarantee by the total amount of guarantee balance by each guarantee agency as at the time a credit guarantee accident occurs

2. Where only one of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation or other guarantee institutions exists a separate loan liable for guarantee and a separate loan jointly liable for guarantee by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and other guarantee institutions, the amount obtained by multiplying the total amount of the following items by the partial guarantee ratio:

(a) Loans by case borne only by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation and creditors;

(b) With respect to separate loans for which the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund and other guarantee agencies jointly bear guarantee responsibilities, the amount divided by an amount of guarantee balance by each guarantee agency at the time of the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident less a separate loan to be borne by only one guarantee agency and creditors at the time of the performance of guaranteed liabilities from the aggregate of the portion of creditor responsibilities

(3) Where a creditor fails to claim the performance of a guaranteed obligation within the time limit prescribed in Article 10 (2), notwithstanding paragraph (1) 2, he/she shall not perform the interest accrued from the date following the expiration of such time limit until the date of claim.

On June 4, 2008, the Insurance Corporation entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the FFF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "FFF") and FF to secure the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff by receiving a loan from the Plaintiff, and the FF borrowed money from the Plaintiff as security for the letter of credit guarantee agreement of the Insurance Corporation. Article 5 and Article 14 of the Credit Guarantee Clause provide that:

Article 5 (Extent of Guaranteed Obligations)

(1) The debts guaranteed by the Insurance Corporation shall not be the aggregate of the following amounts:

1. Principal of loan with a credit guarantee within the scope of the credit guarantee limit stated on the front of a credit guarantee statement: Provided, That where substitute payments for payment guarantee have occurred, substitute payments within the limit of guarantee;

2. Interest amount on the principal of a loan with a credit guarantee side loan with an agreed interest rate (excluding overdue interest at the rate applied on the repayment date): Provided, That with respect to the substitute payment under the proviso to subparagraph 1, the interest rate applied on the latest date loan to the relevant debtor shall be applied first, and if there is no corresponding interest rate, the interest amount at the rate calculated by adding 2% to the certificate of deposit (91 days) announced by the Bank of

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the following amounts of interest shall not be guaranteed:

1. Interest accrued, in cases where the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident is not notified within the period prescribed in Article 10 (1), from the date following the expiration of such period until the date of notification of the occurrence of the accident;

2. Interest accrued from the date following the expiration of the term, if a person fails to request the performance of the guaranteed obligation within the term prescribed in Article 15 (2) until the date of request.

(3) Where the Korea Insurance Corporation and other guarantee agencies offer concurrent guarantees, notwithstanding paragraph (1), the balance of loans at the time of a credit guarantee accident shall be divided in proportion to the balance of guarantees by each guarantee agency (in cases of partial guarantees, including the portion of share of bank liabilities), and the principal and agreed interest corresponding thereto shall be paid up.

(4) If a credit guarantee subsidiary loan referred to in paragraph (1) is in a foreign currency, the Insurance Corporation may pay a credit guarantee subsidiary loan in Korean currency.

Article 14 (Amount of Debt Guarantee Liability)

The Insurance Corporation shall implement as a credit guarantee liability the balance obtained by subtracting the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs from the debts guaranteed under Article 5 at the time of a credit guarantee accident:

1. Amount received before a credit guarantee liability is met;

2. The balance obtained by subtracting reasonable expenses incurred in recovery from the amount recovered from the exercise of rights related to credit guarantee side loans before credit guarantee liabilities are fulfilled.

3. The portion corresponding to the period after the date of payment by subrogation, such as interest accrued in advance from the debtor for a credit guarantee installment loan (if there are several credit guarantee installments loans, it shall be adjusted for each case of loan);

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 7, 12, 13, and 14, the whole pleadings

Purport

D. Determination

1) As to the assertion regarding the principal portion of each disposition of this case

A) As to the instant insurance money

In light of the aforementioned facts, the following circumstances revealed: ① The instant insurance accident occurred after the shipment of the instant goods, such as performing all obligations under the instant goods contract; ② As long as the instant insurance accident occurred after the shipment of the instant goods, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive insurance money under the instant export insurance contract and the terms and conditions of export insurance from the Insurance Corporation as the beneficiary under the instant export insurance contract; ③ The instant export insurance contract and the terms and conditions of export insurance stipulate that the amount of the insurance money after the shipment of the instant goods shall be 95% U.S. dollars within the scope of the insurance value based on the annual interest and interest amount equivalent to 95% of the insurable value based on the claim for principal and interest, i.e., 95% of the principal and interest amount of the instant goods, and thus, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Insurance Corporation agreed to determine 95% of the principal and interest amount of the instant goods as the insurance money. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appropriation for the instant insurance contract for the principal and interest amount under the instant contract for the principal and interest amount under the instant contract was lawful for each of O interest amount under the instant contract.

B.

3) As to the Defendant’s guaranteed liability

(1) The Plaintiff received the instant guarantee repayment from the Credit Guarantee Fund, etc.

Article 12 of the Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions, Article 11 of the Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions, and Article 14 of the Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions, which are derived from a special agreement between the plaintiff and the guarantor. However, according to the above facts, Article 12 of the Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions, Article 11 of the Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions, and Article 14 of the Insurance Corporation's Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions of Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's Credit Guarantee Fund's

(2) Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence No. 15, the above terms and conditions cannot be deemed as being incorporated into a loan contract with the Plaintiff, DD, EE media, and FF, and even if the above terms and conditions were incorporated into a loan contract, it cannot be deemed that Article 13 (1) of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for corporations) provides that if the obligor has lost the benefit due, or the bank has paid off the obligor a set-off or paid-off by proxy under Article 10, the whole amount of the obligor's obligation is insufficient, it shall be appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and principal if the obligor's obligation is discharged. However, the bank may set aside the order of appropriation within the extent not favorable to the obligor. However, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff approved the application of the Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions (for corporations) between DD, EE media, and FF, which are the counterpart to the loan, and even if the above terms and conditions were not incorporated into a loan contract, it cannot be deemed that the Credit Guarantee Fund is applied to the guarantor, etc.

In addition, Article 476 of the Civil Act provides that where an obligor bears several obligations for the same kind of obligation to the same obligee, if the provision of performance does not become extinct, the obligee may designate any of the obligations at the time and apply it to the repayment (paragraph (1)). If the obligee does not designate the obligor, the obligee who is to be reimbursed may apply it to the repayment by designating any of the obligations at the time, but shall not apply where the obligee immediately raises an objection to the appropriation (paragraph (2). Further, Article 478 of the Civil Act provides that Article 476 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis mutatis mutandis to the payment of the entire obligation when the obligee needs to pay one of the obligations, and Article 478 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the payment of the entire obligation when the obligee is paid the insurance money and the guaranteed obligation from the Insurance Corporation, the Credit Guarantee Fund, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the obligee first receives the payment of the insurance money in this case from the Insurance Corporation, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, etc., or appropriated the principal for the obligee without explicitly indicating the obligee as well as well as well.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion on the part of additional tax in each of the dispositions of this case

A) When a single tax payment notice imposes both the principal and the additional taxes, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation shall be stated in the tax payment notice separately. In addition, where multiple kinds of additional taxes are to be imposed, it is natural that the taxpayer can per se know the details of each tax disposition by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation of the additional taxes. As such, the imposition of additional taxes is deemed an imposition disposition, and only the total amount of additional taxes is entered without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the amount. However, even if there is any defect in the matters required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the tax payment notice, if it is evident that the taxpayer has already already entered all necessary matters in the tax payment notice, etc. sent to the taxpayer prior to the taxation disposition, and it is evident that the defect in the tax payment notice may be supplemented or cured (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 9 and 11, the tax amount for the business year from September 10, 2010 was written on the notice of tax payment as of September 10, 2010; the fact that the basis for the calculation of the additional tax is not written; the defendant's corporate tax for the business year from 2006 to 208

As can be acknowledged in the notice sent to correct reduction and notify the Plaintiff of the results of treatment, the duty payment notice of the penalty tax in the instant disposition contains any defects such as omitting matters to be stated in the relevant statutes, and no other circumstance exists to deem that the defect was supplemented or cured. Therefore, the part of the penalty tax in each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

3) Sub-decisions

Of the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax on March 2, 201, 2006 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant, the principal tax on the instant insurance money and the amount of the guaranteed obligation in the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax on March 2, 2011 is as seen earlier, the fact that the principal tax on the instant insurance money and the amount of the instant insurance money is an OOO (see Table 3 below).

Where interest income related to the insurance money of this case is not included in gross income, the corporate tax amount for the business year 2006.

Classification

The fourth decision

Justifiable Tax Amount

Jinay

Tax Base

OOO

OOO

To deduct interest income OOO in connection with the insurance money of this case

Tax Rate

25%

25%

calculated tax amount

OOO

OOO

Tax reduction or exemption eligible for minimum tax;

OOO

OOO

Tax amount deducted or exempted from minimum tax;

OOO

OOO

Amount of deducted tax

OOO

OOO

The difference between the OOO members is the principal tax on the interest income related to the insurance money of this case.

Additional Tax

OOO

OOO

Total determined tax amount

OOO

OOO

(unit: Won)

Therefore, the defendant's imposition disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005 against the plaintiff should be revoked since the part of the additional tax exceeding the OOOOOO won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2005 against the plaintiff, the part of the main tax exceeding the OOOO won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2006 as of March 2, 201; the part of the additional tax exceeding the additional OOOOO won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007 as of March 2, 201; the part of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007 as of January 10, 201; and the part of the additional tax exceeding the OOOOO won should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.