1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s penalty tax out of KRW 3,361,250,000 against the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owns the Gyeyang Folk Museum (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with a total floor area of 7,966m2,00 square meters at 123,00 Masan-ro, Masan-ro, Masan-ro.

B. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff the total of KRW 1,991,50, KRW 1,369,750, KRW 361,250, KRW 1,991,50, and KRW 1,991,50, and KRW 1,151,680, and KRW 3,143,180, and KRW 1,991,50,50, and KRW 93,610, and KRW 2,925,110, KRW 1,991,50, and KRW 715,540, KRW 270, KRW 2707, KRW 407, KRW 97, KRW 97, and KRW 97, KRW 405, and KRW 97, KRW 1,97, and KRW 94, and KRW 1,540, KRW 97, and KRW 94, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. On February 17, 2017, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The tax Tribunal shall not apply the penalty tax and the penalty tax against insincereful payment during the instant disposition, which shall correct the relevant tax amount, and dismiss the remainder of the appeal.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision of the Tax Tribunal of this case"). . [Ground for recognition] . (Ground for recognition] . The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the claims for revocation ex officio is legitimate, among the lawsuits in this case

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion stated that "the defendant's revocation of each of the dispositions in this case's additional tax amount ex officio, this part must be excluded from the subject matter of the merits

B. If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, and no longer exists, and a revocation suit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). According to the following purport: (a) Domination of evidence No. 4; and (b) the entire purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 4.