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

A. The Plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives consisting of representatives of occupants elected in proportion to the number of households by buildings of the divings apartment in Songpa-gu Seoul Olympic City, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "multi-family housing").

B. While managing the section for common use of an apartment during the period indicated in the attached Table, the Plaintiff received fees in return for partially leasing the section for common use of the apartment, or allowing the installation of an advertisement on its part, and obtained the same profits as indicated in the attached Table by installing a vending machine and selling the goods.

(hereinafter referred to as "the proceeds of this case").

On May 2, 2013, the director of the tax office, before the correction, deemed that the pertinent profits in this case constituted each business income listed in the separate applicable provisions of the attached Table, and imposed each global income tax on the Plaintiff as stated in the attached Table.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 2014, but received a decision of dismissal on February 11, 2015, and the said decision of dismissal was served on the Plaintiff on February 13, 2015.

E. On the other hand, on May 6, 2013, the locked Tax Office was newly established, and the right to impose tax on the Plaintiff was transferred from the head of the relevant tax office on May 9, 2013 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 8, Eul's 1 through 8 (including those with more than one number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 constitutes business income subject to taxation, it is recognized that the Plaintiff created such income through continuous and repeated profit-making activities. Since the Plaintiff has appropriated the instant income with the management expenses or the long-term repair appropriations of apartment houses, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff engaged in business activities for profit-making purposes.

Therefore, the revenue of this case is subject to taxation.