2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

A. From May 2012, the Plaintiff received an investigation into the suspicion of occupational breach of trust as a suspect with respect to the creation of extra funds, etc., the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 2,989,00,000 (hereinafter “instant attorney’s fees”) and the value-added tax total of KRW 298,90,000 (hereinafter “instant attorney’s fees”) in the business year 2012, and included the instant attorney’s fees in the deductible expenses. The Plaintiff deducted the pertinent value-added tax as the input tax amount, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2012.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant attorney’s fees did not meet the requirements for deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act on the ground that they have no relevance to business; and (b) deemed that the said value-added tax did not meet the requirements for input tax deduction under the Value-Added Tax Act; (c) accordingly, the Defendant corrected corporate tax for the business year 2012 against the Plaintiff at KRW 51,505,668,569 (hereinafter “assessment disposition of corporate tax as of May 9, 2014”); (d) on May 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised disposition of KRW 186,59,613 and additional tax KRW 106,429,217, KRW 297, KRW 1,247, KRW 175, KRW 343,983, and KRW 205, KRW 196, KRW 205, KRW 25165, respectively, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part requesting revocation of imposition of each corporate tax among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate

A. In a case where an increase or decrease is made after a tax disposition was issued on May 9, 2014 to revoke the imposition of corporate tax as of May 9, 2014.