1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking the revocation of each corporate tax refund disposition against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff A corporation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B established and operated the Plaintiffs’ legal entity in sequential order from around 1991 to around 2009 to the incorporation of Plaintiff C, and operated an individual business entity with the trade name called “D” separately.

B. On January 12, 201, 201, B was convicted of three-year imprisonment on the ground that “D, an individual entrepreneur, was entrusted with the exercise of funeral from 2007 to 2009 by the Plaintiffs, while practically controlling the Plaintiff, embezzled KRW 30,240,50,000, which is the principal agent in charge of the actual exercise of funeral and the principal agent in charge of the exercise-related revenue.”

On June 30, 2011, the above ruling became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court as the dismissal of appeal.

C. From 2007 to 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the entity that provided funeral services is not D but B; (b) determined the return and payment of income tax for the year 2007 to 2010, which was reported on the premise that the entity that provided funeral services was provided in this Chapter; (c) changed the return and payment of income tax for the year 207 to 2010; and (d) determined the refund of corporate tax of KRW 9,782,08,990 to the Plaintiffs on August 19, 2013, by deeming that the service income and response cost reported in this case was changed to the Plaintiffs’ profits and expenses; and (e) considered the global income tax of KRW 9,90,782,88,99,90 paid as corporate tax for the Plaintiffs on August 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant refund decision”); and (b) considered that the Plaintiff’s income amount was leaked as a bonus to the Plaintiffs on August 19, 2013.

(B) The disposition of income in this case (hereinafter “the disposition of income in this case”).

Meanwhile, the Defendant included KRW 1,326,177,00, among the brokerage fees for the funeral received by B from charnel houses and fireworks, etc. from 2008 to 2011, in the Plaintiff’s gross income, and on September 4, 2012, deemed that the brokerage fees for the funeral were subject to value-added tax, and thus, to the Plaintiff A.