1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the dismissal of “63.3 billion won” of the third 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1) It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s capital structure that the Plaintiff raised as a part of free business activities would seriously undermine the Plaintiff’s free business activities, which is a project implementer, merely because it was found that the Plaintiff, who deviates from the requirements and limitations of the supervisory order under the Private Investment Act, fell under the “case necessary for the normal operation of the facility,” which is the requirement for issuing the supervisory order, merely because it was omitted in capital erosion by procuring subordinated loans, and the alteration of the capital structure that the Plaintiff raised as a part of free business activities goes beyond the bounds of the supervisory order. (ii) The instant disposition in violation of the principle of clarity is not the meaning of restoring the land to its original

3) The instant disposition is aimed at depriving the Plaintiff of the right to operate the business by pressureing the Plaintiff, and its purpose is not justifiable, and its means is inappropriate as it is possible to correct the Plaintiff’s omission of corporate tax pursuant to the provision of the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act. The public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition is not significant, while the Plaintiff’s private interest that is infringed thereby, is in violation of the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the instant disposition is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure in the prior notification procedure, sent to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2014, can be understood as a matter of course.