1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since the Plaintiff opened and operated a beauty art room in the name of "C" in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul on May 22, 1997, the Plaintiff started a beauty art room in Seoul, Seodaemun-gu D (E stores), Gangnam-gu, Seoul (G stores), and Guisi H (I stores) with the same trade name, and operated four beauty art rooms in total up to now.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from October 30, 2014 to January 12, 2015, conducted an individual tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, found that the Plaintiff was omitted from cash income in relation to the operation of the said four branches, and confirmed that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of such taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on February 2, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the total of KRW 781,831,980 from 2009 to 2013.

Specific details are as follows: (f) the entry in the column of the corrected tax amount in the table of paragraph (f).

On May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection, and the Defendant, upon which the re-audit was made in the procedure of filing the objection, re-audited the costs related to global income tax, and subsequently corrected the amount to KRW 251,846,760 in total from September 24, 2015 to September 24, 2015.

Specific details are the same as the entry in the column of re-revision tax amount in the table of paragraph (f).

(hereinafter referred to as the above, remaining parts after reduction are referred to as “the first disposition”). E

On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal re-examines as to whether the personnel expenses of KRW 163,803,00 for the year 2010 are necessary expenses corresponding to the omission of sales, and the tax base and tax amount are corrected according to the results, and the remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

“ ............”

F. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2010 according to the re-audit decision.