1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this Court, shall be modified as follows:

The instant lawsuit is filed.

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasoning of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the following: “The use of the last five to nine parts of the fifth five to nine parts of the first instance court’s judgment is engaged in essential business according to the use, so it recognizes such fact and accurately discloses the Defendant’s performance of omission, and all local taxes related to the corporation’s unique duties as well as dispositions commissioned to the Supreme Court and all local taxes related to the corporation’s unique duties are unlawful.”

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. This part of the judgment is as stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following:

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following contents are added to the 7th 8th h of the judgment of the first instance court. 3) The Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiff has engaged in its unique duties and essential duties at the seat of its principal office is unlawful as it does not fall under an appeal litigation (Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act) filed against a disposition, etc. or omission by an administrative agency subject to administrative litigation, or litigation related to legal relations arising from a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency, etc.,

4) The part seeking the confirmation of the invalidation of all the Defendant’s administrative dispositions, namely, the entire local tax that the Defendant notified to the Plaintiff from July 2013 and the part seeking confirmation of the revocation or invalidation of all the disposition entrusted to the Supreme Court, which was seized by the Defendant to the Supreme Court, is unlawful as the Defendant’s disposition is not specified (the Plaintiff cannot identify the specific date of disposition because it does not specify the administrative disposition seeking revocation of this part, but the purport of the appeal is ten months from June 15, 2016, which was the filing date of the instant lawsuit, and is first filed on May 12, 2017.