1. The following part of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant limited to the plaintiff on August 5, 2013.

1. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. If an administrative disposition regarding a claim for revocation of the portion of penalty tax among the instant lawsuit is revoked, such disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination of ex officio revocation of the ex officio revocation of a disposition that had not been effective on December 13, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the revocation of a disposition that had not been effective on the ground that the Defendant had ex officio revoked the amount of penalty surcharge of KRW 45,064,136, and penalty surcharge of KRW 37,805

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the principal portion among the dispositions of this case

A. The reasons for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are partly amended as follows. The reasons for this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for appeal Nos. 5 to 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition in the following sub-paragraph (b), are as follows.

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

Part 4, Section 10 to Section 12, "B, in the accounting process of using the amount derived from advance or short-term loans, shall be excluded from the key amount because it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired most of its liabilities because it did not exist or it was repaid to the creditor."

B. Additional decision of this Court 1 is added by the Plaintiff.