1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The correction of the purport of the claim in the trial.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, with the exception that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, and that the defendant’s assertion is insufficient to recognize the defendant’s assertion as additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 4 [Attachment 2] of the 7-8th sentence of the 7-8th sentence “A disposition of imposition of KRW 486,493,010 of corporate tax in October 18, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was issued against the Plaintiff on October 18, 2012,” and the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of KRW 486,493,018 of the total amount of other items as corporate tax in August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for the review of the legality of the taxation before imposing corporate tax as corporate tax in 2010, and the Plaintiff corrected KRW 381,605,211 related to the foregoing non-deductible of deductible expenses on August 9, 2012, and decided not to adopt the review of the legality of the taxation before imposing corporate tax, KRW 386,65,084 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Part 5 (Reasons for Recognition) shall add "No. 5-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence 5-1, 5-2, and 3."

“A” of “A” of “A” of “A, 5.” of “A” in an unjust manner.

The 5th parallel 18 to 7th parallel 18 is as follows.

“1) The rejection of unfair act and calculation is a system that, when a corporation trades with a person with a special relationship, instead of using a reasonable method by a person with a special relationship, unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by undermining the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the person with tax authority is deemed to have the income objectively and reasonably deemed to have been denied and reasonable by the method prescribed by the law. In light of the economic person’s perspective, it is natural.