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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in construction and civil construction business, included the processing costs of KRW 1,012,250,00 in total in the business year 201, totaling KRW 1,652,793,00 in the business year 201, and the processing costs of KRW 420,000 in total in the business year 2012 in each raw material account of the settlement of accounts (hereinafter “instant processing costs”), and included the processing costs of KRW 420,00,00 in each corporate tax return for each corporate tax return.

The plaintiff's account book shows that cash has been deposited in the provisional account whenever each processing cost is appropriated, and at the end of the year, when the accounts are settled, the amount of the accounts receivable such as bills are repaid and the total amount of the provisional account is half.

B. From April 30, 2014 to July 5, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and discovered that the Plaintiff included the instant processing expenses in the deductible expenses; notified the head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office, the head of the competent tax office, of the imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff; while deeming that the instant processing expenses were out of the company, the instant processing expenses were deemed to have been out of the company, and disposed of as bonus by each business year for the representative director B, and issued a notice of changes in the amount of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the Plaintiff from 2010 to 2012.

On September 1, 2014, the head of Dongjak Tax Office imposed corporate tax of 390,340,840 (including penalty tax for unfair underreporting; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010, corporate tax of 600,401,940, corporate tax of 2011, and corporate tax of 129,413,990 for the business year of 2012.

C. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and the disposition of imposing corporate tax by the head of Dongjak Tax Office, and filed an objection against the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant, on February 5, 2015, re-audited the amount of the construction account and the amount of the construction account actually paid by the plaintiff as the representative's restriction on the return of the amount of the construction account during each business year, and went out of the company.