1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the two pages 4 through 3 pages 2 among the reasons for the judgment. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Korea Branch Corporation is not a Chinese corporation’s subsidiary, so even if the Korea Branch Corporation closes its business ex officio, the special relationship between the Plaintiff and the Chinese corporation is not extinguished. Thus, Article 11 subparag. 9-2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied.

B) The grounds for disposition that the Plaintiff embezzled and embezzled the instant provisional payment are not identical to the previous grounds for disposition and basic factual relations. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition grounds are not allowed. Even if the Plaintiff’s additional grounds for disposition are allowed, since the Plaintiff’s income accrue immediately when the Plaintiff useful the funds, the period to which the instant provisional payment belongs should be deemed as 2010, 2011, and 2012, which is useful for the instant provisional payment. In addition, if the Plaintiff deemed that the provisional payment is useful, the disposition grounds for disposition that deemed the instant provisional payment as the loan and deemed the amount recognized and equivalent to the relevant amount as income is unlawful. 2) (i) The special relationship between the Plaintiff and the Korea branch corporation, the representative of the Korea branch corporation, was extinguished as the closure of the business at its discretion, and the Korea branch corporation did not recover the instant provisional payment from the Plaintiff until that time, including the instant provisional payment as the income accrued to the Plaintiff by applying Article 11 subparag. 9-2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. 2).

In addition, it was closed ex officio in 2013.