1. Each disposition of value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014 (attached Form 1) is included in the disposition list.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to undertake the construction of a new employee’s general welfare center (hereinafter “instant welfare center”) and complete the construction process on May 30, 201, under which the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to entrust the management without compensation for three years from October 1, 201 to September 30, 201 at the Korea Labor-Management-gun District Branch (hereinafter “Korea Labor-Management District Branch”) on September 5, 201 after completing the construction process.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The Korea Labor-General Branch has reported and paid value-added tax on real estate rental and sales of sports facility operation business arising from the operation of the facility of the instant welfare center to the Defendant.

B. On December 20, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax without deducting the value-added tax borne by the Plaintiff in relation to the facility investment of the instant welfare center and the Tae YYA as the input tax amount. On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of value-added tax from the first half to the second half of 2009 on the ground that the instant welfare center and the Tae YAGE constitutes a real estate rental business, and the pertinent input tax amount should be deducted.

C. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant decided to refund KRW 1,300,625,563 in total upon accepting the above request for correction, and refunded it to the Plaintiff. However, on January 2014, the vice president of the Central District Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff’s entrustment of the instant welfare center to the Korea Labor-General Branch does not constitute an object of value-added tax if the Plaintiff entrusted the instant welfare center to the Korea Labor-General Branch constitutes a gratuitous provision of services, and that the Defendant demanded the Defendant to deduct the input tax amount borne by the Plaintiff in relation to the facility investment of the instant welfare center.

Accordingly, on June 2, 2014, the Defendant added the excess refund return and the additional tax for arrears to the input tax amount related to the facility investment of the instant welfare center among the aforementioned refundable tax amount (attached Form 1).