1. The part of the plaintiff B’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s September 1, 201 Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company engaged in sales agency business, sales agency business, and sales agency business. Plaintiff B is the actual operator of Plaintiff Co., Ltd., and Plaintiff Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for ordering redevelopment works in the Zone C with a lot Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slick Construction”) around April 2010.

B. On June 27, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office”) sent approximately KRW 9.7 billion among KRW 16.1 billion received from the Plaintiff Company to public relations personnel, etc., and received and commercialized the money by cash, and notified the Defendant of the purport that “The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,817,720,000 among them to its members, etc., but received rewards as if they were paid as service costs, and requested the Plaintiffs to file an accusation against the Plaintiff as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.”

C. The Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 8,817,720,00 to its members and real estate business entities of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association as honorariums for the purpose of selecting the Plaintiff Company as the contractor for the Housing Redevelopment Project in the Zone C, but accounts as if it were paid for the service cost.” The Defendant deemed the above KRW 8,817,720,00 as the price for solicitation illegally paid to the Plaintiff Company and notified the Plaintiff Company of the correction of corporate tax of KRW 2,98,725,620 (including additional tax of KRW 1,059,853,642) for the business year 2010 as corporate tax of September 1, 2010 and notified the Plaintiff Company of the payment of the said corporate tax and additional tax by designating the Plaintiff Company as the secondary taxpayer for the Plaintiff Company on October 20, 2011.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiffs appealed and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on November 29, 201, but the said petition was dismissed on April 26, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Additional dues in the Plaintiff B’s lawsuit.