1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates a truck terminal facility at 451 Simpo-dong, Simpo-si.

B. On March 25, 2012, the Plaintiff reported corporate tax for the business year 2011 as “calculated tax amount of KRW 3,140,927,424; KRW 1,658,463,712; and KRW 519,319,29,290”.

C. On August 23, 2012, when the Plaintiff filed a tax return for interim prepayment of corporate tax for the business year 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax return for interim prepayment with the amount of tax calculated for the immediately preceding business year by applying the corporate tax rate under Article 55 of the amended Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “Revised Corporate Tax Act”) to KRW 2,857,206,749, and the amount of tax reduced or exempted as the amount of tax for interim prepayment of KRW 1,658,463,712, and the amount of tax reduced or exempted as the amount of tax for interim prepayment of KRW

In cases where the calculated tax amount is changed by re-calculation the calculated tax amount for the immediately preceding business year due to the revised corporate tax rate, the Defendant deemed that the reduced or exempted corporate tax amount at the time of calculating the amount of interim tax pursuant to Article 51 of the Addenda of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10653, May 19, 201; hereinafter “amended Special Provision Act”) should be re-calculated in accordance with Article 132(1) of the amended Special Provision of Special Taxation Act, and the deducted tax subject to the minimum tax amount shall be KRW 1,374,743,037, which shall be deemed as KRW 6,639,063, March 8, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 148,49,400, corporate tax for the business year of 2012

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposing additional tax for unfaithful payment”). E.

On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition of additional tax, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, and received a decision of dismissal on September 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of additional tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion is based on the defendant's disposition of additional tax of this case.