2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. D, from June 10, 2005 to August 20, 2012, operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant place of business”) under the trade name “G” on the first floor of the F hotel building located in Sung-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, and registered the business of the instant place of business in the name of H from June 10, 2005 to June 30, 2008, under the name of H from June 10, 2008, and from July 1, 2008 to August 20, 2012.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the instant workplace from April 12, 2012 to July 6, 2012, the Busan Regional Tax Office: (a) identified that the instant workplace is D and that the amount of revenue omitted between D and December 31, 2009 was KRW 2,678,960,000; and (b) notified the Defendant of the aforementioned taxation data by identifying that the amount of revenue omitted between D and January 1, 2006 was KRW 2,678,960,000; and (c) the Defendant corrected KRW 2,472,06,820 in total of the value-added tax, value-added tax, special consumption tax (including education tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and global income tax on July 5, 2012.

C. Around October 4, 2012, asserting that “D operated the instant workplace jointly with the Plaintiffs, from June 14, 2006 to September 30, 2007,” D filed an objection to demand re-issuance of global income tax for the year 2006 and global income tax for the year 2007. The commissioner of Busan Regional Tax Office, on October 24, 2012, filed an objection to demand re-issuance of D and the period of the Plaintiff’s business (from June 14, 2006 to January 14, 2007), D: D: D 40%, Plaintiff C30%, Plaintiff A30%, and Plaintiff A’s business operation period (from January 15, 2007 to September 30, 207), and D’s business operation period for each Plaintiff’s business entity (the amount of tax distributed to Plaintiff 60% and its amount of tax after re-auditing the amount of tax for each Plaintiff’s income and its amount of tax.

The decision to conduct a reinvestigation was made to the effect that ", and the Busan regional tax office conducted a reinvestigation from November 7, 2012 to November 21, 2012, and as a result, the plaintiffs and D jointly operated the place of business of this case and notified the defendant thereof.

Accordingly, the defendant is indicated in the corresponding column in attached Table 1 as of February 1, 2013, and the value-added tax for the first period of January 2006 is 65,278.