1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, “the part of corporate tax for 2010 in the disposition of tax investigation rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012.”

1. In the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition rendered by the Defendant on March 21, 2012, the first instance court rejected the part seeking revocation of the portion of the instant disposition, and “the part seeking revocation of the portion of the corporate tax (value-added tax, etc.)” and “the part seeking revocation of the portion of the instant disposition (the part seeking revocation of the part of the corporate tax).” Accordingly, the Defendant filed an incidental appeal as to “the part seeking revocation of the portion of the instant disposition (the part seeking revocation of the part against the Defendant) during the instant disposition,” and the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal as to “the part seeking revocation of the part of the value-added tax (the part against the Plaintiff) during the instant disposition.” The first instance court accepted the Defendant’s appeal as to “the part seeking revocation of the portion of the corporate tax in 2010 among the instant disposition,” and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim therefor.

In this regard, only the Plaintiff appealed to the part against the Plaintiff in the judgment before remanding the case (the part against which the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the part against the Plaintiff’s corporate tax in 2010 and 2010 among the disposition of this case). The Supreme Court reversed only “the part against which the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the part against the corporate tax in 2010 among the disposition of this case” and remanded the case before remand.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim before remand except for the part seeking the revocation of the corporate tax for the year 2010 among the disposition of this case is determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part seeking the revocation of the corporate tax for the year 2010 among the disposition of this case.

2. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The case.