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

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition as follows. Thus, this Court's explanation is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts of cutting.

○ Nos. 20 and 21 of the 4th 20th 20, “The fact that the aggregate of the revenue amounts of the taxable period (2011) in the immediately preceding 2012 for each of the construction business and service business carried on by the Plaintiff falls short of a certain standard” shall be read as “the fact that the aggregate of revenue amounts of the taxable period (2011) in the immediately preceding 2012 business year

In Chapter 5, Chapter 9, "Non-necessary," "The standard for determining persons eligible for simple expense rate is whether the total amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period falls short of the standard amount, whether they join a cash receipt merchant, etc.", and where the types of business are concurrently operated or two or more places of business, the total amount calculated by multiplying the revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period by the standard amount ratio between the types of business and the revenue in the type of business other than the primary type of business shall be deemed as calculated, and the application of simple expense rate may be determined by each type of business not by type of business or place of business, and Article 143 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "The business operators not eligible for simple expense rate

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.