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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the written judgment in the first instance court’s first instance judgment as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Part 3 through 5, “Inasmuch as the part of the supply of electricity and gas to occupant enterprises is the amount of tax used by the occupant enterprises,” the part of the Plaintiff’s supply of electricity and gas to the occupant enterprises shall be limited to the Plaintiff’s original business or at least to its original business implementation.”

(b) in Part 6, paragraph 7, the "water rate" has been raised to "gas rate";

C. On the part 6, Nos. 16 through 18, “the Defendant did not have any data in the instant case, , , and there is no data,” the phrase “A evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2 is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s opinion in relation to each disposition of the instant case, and committed an act contrary to its expression of opinion, or changed its interpretation retroactively to the tax law, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)