2. Whether the disposition of value-added tax and corporate tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) The court's explanation as to this part of the allegation of defects in the tax investigation of this case is as follows: (a) No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2 of the first instance, "charge 23,533,485 won" is used as "other fee 31,070,94 won"; and (b) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment except for adding the following parts between the 17th and 8, 8 and the 9. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff argues that "the appropriateness of selection of the plaintiff subject to occasional tax investigation should be determined based on the notice of tax investigation officially notified by the defendant to the plaintiff." However, since the notice of tax investigation aims to outlinely inform the taxpayer of the subject, scope, and period of the tax investigation and the circumstances leading to conducting the tax investigation, the tax authority does not have any obligation to specify all reasons for the tax investigation.