The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. After citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its decision, and found that the previous disposition of this case was unlawful on May 1, 2009 when the judgment revoking the previous disposition of this case became final and conclusive. Since the above judgment did not constitute an officer or employee of the corporation E, the tax authority made a disposition against the plaintiff by applying Article 106 (1) 1 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033 of Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") to the plaintiff as other income, the court below determined that the previous disposition of this case was in violation of Article 106 (1) 1 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033 of Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter referred to as "the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") as other income.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or by violating the precedents.

2. Other argument in the grounds of appeal is a new argument that is only made in the final appeal, and is not a legitimate ground of appeal.