1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the decision of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial, are as follows.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As to the portion of tax-related damages claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the Defendants’ failure to perform their tax liability related to the non-party company at the time of the instant sales contract. The above liability for damages is joint and several liability arising from commercial activities that occurred during the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the non-party company. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the non-party company and paid the Defendants the total amount of KRW 864,847,930 (i.e., corporate income tax, value-added tax, local tax, etc. that occurred during the period in which the Defendants operated the non-party company (= KRW 839,637,700, KRW 15,210,870, KRW 99,360). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages due to the Plaintiff’s exemption of value-added tax, KRW 864,847,930 and delay damages therefrom).

In other words, the value-added tax imposed in relation to the value-added tax (i.e., the value-added tax imposed on the Guro Tax Office from May to December 6, 201 (i.e., KRW 813,506,99) (i.e., KRW 104,150, KRW 167, KRW 709,356,832) was unfairly imposed in relation to L equivalent to “books” subject to the exemption of value-added tax, and thus, the Plaintiff paid value-added tax without any liability for payment, or conducted tax investigation on the non-party company (i.e., from January 2001 to December 2004) around 205.