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

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s main business is cargo transport, loading and unloading of ports, and express bus business.

B. From January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff leased a total of 15,599 square meters of the same 330-243 square meters and a total of 18,843 square meters of the same 330-243 square meters and 330-2444 square meters of the same 330-31 square meters of the same 330-31 square meters of the same land owned by the Plaintiff, from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008. From July 1, 2008 to July 31, 201, the Plaintiff leased a total of 14,277 square meters of the above 18,566 square meters of the above 330-311 square meters of the same site and 330-243,244 square meters of the same site.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land,” regardless of the leased area, by aggregating the above 330-31, 243 land.

On November 7, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant land lease as the lease of assets unrelated to the business, and excluded the interest paid on the land from deductible expenses, and imposed corporate tax and additional tax on the Plaintiff as follows:

(2) The disposition of this case includes the following: (a) The sum of corporate tax (original) for the business year 206 72,840,748 502,746,032 1,225,586,780 1,089,459,597 1,207 132,25,8132,679,267 1,6774,654,935,080 1,239,620,620 208 372,984,4714,4717,429,516, 3016, 305, 1674, 16364, 167, 2074, 2064, 208, 2064, 26367, 2674, 2678, 2064

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 25, 2012, but was dismissed on October 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land falls under the instant building on the instant land, and does not fall under the “land without a building” under the main text of Article 26(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act. 2) Even if the container cover does not fall under a building, the Plaintiff used the container cover while engaging in maritime cargo transport business, selective distribution business, warehouse business, etc.