1. The Defendant’s corporate tax of 9,188,834 won for the business year 2009 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2012, and corporate tax of 1,369 for the business year 209.

Details of the disposition

A. The settlement of accounts, tunnel, private investment project (hereinafter “instant project”) is a project that constructs and operates a four-line tunnel that connects the Busan and Busan urban center at the time of completion of the construction of infrastructure by “the ownership of the infrastructure belongs to the State or a local government, and the project implementer recognizes the right to manage and operate the infrastructure for a certain period of time” under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (hereinafter “Private Investment Act”).

B. The Plaintiff (a trade name at the time of its establishment was “the Maqui Korean Infrastructure Truck,” but was changed to “the corporation undergoing a settlement of accounts” on May 31, 2005, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a corporation established on June 4, 2001 by Malaysia, which was a corporation Malaysia, to acquire and operate a settlement tunnel.

C. The Board of Audit and Inspection, from September 2010 to November 201, 2010, audited the actual status of the follow-up management of private investment projects by guaranteeing minimum import, and demanded the National Tax Service to investigate whether the interest rate for subordinated loans is appropriate.

Accordingly, from June 27, 201 to July 8, 2011, the Defendant investigated the appropriateness of the calculation of interest on subordinated loans in the business year 2009 and 2010 through a corporate tax partial investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and determined that the Plaintiff borrowed subordinated loans from the Manqui Infrastructure Infrastructure Investment Company, a shareholder, at the interest rate of 20% per annum, from a related party lacking economic rationality, constitutes wrongful calculation, and then, based on Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter “Corporate Tax Act”), the Plaintiff filed a report on the corporate tax for the business year from 2006 to 2010 as deductible expenses.