1. Each corporate tax and each of the “disposition Date” and “Disposition Tax Amount” as stated in the attached list 1 that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling shampoo and shampoo (hereinafter “Plaintiff company”), and B is a representative director of the Plaintiff company and a representative director of the Plaintiff company and 100% of the Plaintiff company’s shares, and B and the Plaintiff company have a special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act.

B. However, between January 3, 2005 and June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff Company entered into a contract for the development of each patent right and user fee (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant contracts”) with which the Plaintiff Company would make and sell products using the patent right owned by B and pay a certain amount of patent fee to B, and accordingly, paid the patent fee to B from January 3, 2005 to June 2012. Of which, the patent fee paid from January 2008 to June 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant user fee”).

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant from August 20, 2013 to the same year.

9. By December 24, 200, after conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff Company, the instant royalty was deemed not to have been carried out on the Plaintiff Company’s product, and the instant royalty was not included in deductible expenses, and it was deemed that there were errors such as erroneous appropriation of entertainment expenses as welfare expenses, and treated it as non-deductible expenses, etc. In addition, each corporate tax and value-added tax imposition disposition (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”) with the same content as the “disposition Date” and the “Disposition Tax Amount” column in the attached

Accordingly, on April 8, 2014, Plaintiff Company requested a trial to the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal has the same effect.

9. 23. 23. The instant disposition rendered a decision stating that “The pertinent disposition shall re-examine the appropriate scope of the user fee of this case and only the excess portion shall be deemed as unrelated to the business and thus be excluded from deductible expenses, and its tax base and amount shall be corrected.

E. In accordance with the above decision, the Defendant: “Plaintiff Company B.