1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Among the collective investment schemes under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), the Plaintiff invested the money in an investment trust as follows, thereby gaining or incurring the following profits or losses in the year 2012.

Serial 1 Korea Standards 21,468,063 AB Global high profit 21,468,063 AB global high profit 2,645,113 2 East Securities 4,682,907 3 Handi Securities 725,893 4 Korea Standards -17,047,536 future-friendlydia -19,521,209 Schlage -21,142,673

B. On the other hand, on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 58,939,918 as global income tax for the year 2012, with global income of KRW 258,779,838 (including KRW 28,138,938) to the Defendant.

C. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written request for rectification of the tax base and tax amount to the effect that, in calculating the dividend income amount at the time of the initial return under the foregoing paragraph (b), the Plaintiff deducted from the dividend income amount of KRW 57,711,418 (i.e., the total amount of investment losses incurred in the year 2012 (i.e., Schlage 17,047,047,536 (i.e., Schlage 19,521,209) the future-friendly DNA 19,521,209 (i.e., Schlage 21,142,673) the global income tax for the year 2012.

On November 3, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the amount of investment loss, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is not the amount deducted when calculating the dividend income amount, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for correction, such as the foregoing paragraph (c).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, 6, Eul’s evidence 1-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The calculation of dividend income without adding up the profits and losses that the Plaintiff received from the investment trust based on the summary of the cause of the claim is contrary to the principle of profit-sharing cost response, and infringes on the Plaintiff’s property right.