1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal shall be examined by the parties.

Details of the disposition

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the list of attached Form 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 2); (b) the part of the attached Form 4 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) shall be deleted; (c) the part of the attached Form 1 through 3 (including each number) shall be deleted; and (d) “No. 4” shall be the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as for the second to third to nine (as for the second to nine and the first to nine) except for the addition of the following matters to the 8th and lower parts, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

(E) On February 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of ex officio revocation of the change of income amount of KRW 26,400,000,00 in front of the preceding part of the notice of change of income amount of KRW 1,642,00,000, which reverts to the business year of 2007. The Defendant issued a notice of change of income amount of KRW 26,40,000, which reverted to the business year of 2011 (hereinafter “attached Table 1”) and the notice of change of income amount of KRW 1,560,00,000, which remains after the cancellation as shown in Attached Table 1, and each notice of change of income amount of the business year of 2008 or 2010, respectively, “each of the instant dispositions”

3) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 10 of the expenses indicated in the table Nos. 1 to 3, and 6, and 10 of the fee for the cancellation of the claim

Although it constitutes processing costs, it is merely an accounting that has been made by including the processing accounts corresponding to the first cost of this case in the pertinent business year and on the same day as all of the above costs. Thus, the amount equivalent to the first cost of this case is not leaked out.

Even if there was outflow from the company

Even if the Plaintiff’s total revenue from June 10, 2005 to December 31, 2012, the amount of total revenue of KRW 39,681,360,000, and the amount of total expenditure of KRW 39,650,290,00 that was released from the company cannot exceed KRW 31,070,000, which is the difference between the above revenue and expenditure.

Nevertheless, the amount equivalent to the 1st cost of the instant case is all.