On December 2, 2013, the Defendant reverted to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013 1,381.

[Supplementary Use] Part 2, 14, 17, 2, 17, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3

On the second 18th 10th 10th 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 2nd 2nd 2nd

The part of the 3th to 4th of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") shall be deleted.

The part of the fourth 7th written judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The entry is the same as the entry (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).” The revised disposition on December 2, 2013 following the above correction of reduction is considered as “the instant disposition.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the grounds for use of this part of the relevant law by the court are as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the relevant provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, etc., as to whether the amount equivalent to value-added tax 1 related to the pertinent tax invoice belongs to the instant transaction party (i) whether the pertinent tax invoice belongs to the pertinent transaction party; and (ii) even if a corporation’s income, which is the corporate tax base, was returned to the corporation or the government’s income was leaked out of the company, it can be attributed to the representative only if it is unclear that the income accrued from the outflow of the company was attributed to the third party, such income is attributed to the creditor, etc., and thus, it shall be disposed of as other income or outflow of the company according to the person to whom the income belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4133, Dec.