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

A. From around 2009, the Plaintiff run a credit business with the trade name “B” and registered the business with the trade name “C” on January 1, 201, and closed the business on July 18, 2012.

The Plaintiff establishes “(State)D” (which changed the trade name to “E”) and serves as the representative director of the said legal entity immediately after the closure of business.

B. The Defendant conducted a personal integration investigation against the Plaintiff. From 2009 to 2011, the Plaintiff did not report the amount of income in 2009 and 197,567,000 won, 164,531,524 won in 2010, 76,073,060 won in business income in 209 and 2010. In 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff under-reported the amount of income in 11,280,000 won in 209, by applying the standard expense rate to the Plaintiff’s global income amount in 2009, 51, 75, 208, 2015, 207, 2014, 205, 207, 2014, 205, 207, 2005, 205, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 24, 2013, the plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above request on September 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff submitted all books and documentary evidence to the Defendant at the time of the tax investigation to determine the tax base in 2009 and 2010, the Defendant determined the amount of income in 2009 and 2010 by means of an additional investigation, not an on-site investigation, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 60,000,000 to the debtor F, set up a mortgage on real estate in F’s name; (b) but the said establishment registration was cancelled; and (b) the debtor.