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

A. From March 3, 2006, to June 2016, the Plaintiff leased DNA (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul to B. A business registration certificate was that the Plaintiff was engaged in the inn and the inn and the inn and the real estate business from the instant building. The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the operation of the instant building.

B. From May 28, 2015 to June 16, 2015, the head of the Seodaemun District Tax Office conducted an investigation into value-added tax on the Plaintiff and B from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “previous tax investigation”). After confirming the actual operation of B’s accommodation business in the instant building, he/she issued a disposition of notice of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 2015 pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 168(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the Defendants issued a notice of the Plaintiff’s global income tax and value-added tax, respectively, as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “former Disposition”). (Unit 5) Value-added tax base of the amount of tax assessed for the amount of tax revenue belonging to the disposition authority 52, 306, 311, 47, 463, 460 25, 326, 795, 868, 207, 158, 367, 468, 207, 3648, 267, 368, 367, 468, 467, 167, 468, 167, 205, 205, 368, 364, 205, 207, 3467, 368, 467, 1965, 367, 205, 368, 365, 205, 2011, 247, 29636, 197

C. Meanwhile, during the previous tax investigation process of the instant case.