1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 18, 1983, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of establishing a stable supply basis of gas, and around February 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a software license agreement (soft hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) on the “SYS” software developed by the instant company, which is a software developed by the instant company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant software”).

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the license fee that the instant company received from the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract was the domestic source income of the said company; and (b) collected and notified the corporate tax listed in the No. 1 No. 1 of the attached Table on July 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant first disposition”); and (c) collected and notified each corporate tax listed in the No. 2 through 18 of the attached Table on September 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2,” and the Disposition 1 and 2 of this case collectively referred to as “instant Disposition.”

On February 13, 2017, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication on the instant disposition No. 1, and on March 6, 2017, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request for adjudication on the instant disposition No. 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. A request for a trial on the second disposition of this case is filed by the Gas Technical Institute which is not the plaintiff, the party to the disposition, but the plaintiff's internal organ, and the claim for the cancellation of the second disposition of this case among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful because it did not go through

B. 1) The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2. A’s written disposition of this case No. 2.