Attorney Han-tae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

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

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: “The additional tax on the lack of documentary evidence was not filed at one time,” and “The additional tax on the lack of documentary evidence” was not filed in most of the additional tax on the lack of documentary evidence (as stated in the evidence No. 10 of the evidence No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff reported about KRW 2,790,000,000,000,000 in total of the amount of documentary evidence not collected in 2015 and 2016,000,000,000 won, which is about KRW 13 billion, which is the total amount of documentary evidence not collected during the above period.” Thus, this is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court that rejected

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kang Han-sung

Awards and Decorations for Judges