1. The following part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked.

The defendant limited to the plaintiff on December 8, 2015.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the last 2nd to 3rd 6th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

E. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the issue amount in this case constituted other income as a honorarium under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same), and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the global income tax of KRW 38,195,590 (including additional tax) reverted to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2015.

F. On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on March 7, 2016, but was dismissed on June 20, 2016.

After that, the defendant applied the portion of the additional tax that was originally subject to the tax for underreporting as the general underreporting, and revoked it ex officio, and notified the plaintiff of the correction of the global income tax of 20,042,323 won (including the additional tax) for the year 2011.

(2) If an administrative disposition is revoked as to the part of a lawsuit revoked ex officio, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202 Decided December 13, 2012, etc.). As seen earlier, the Defendant revoked part of the penalty tax ex officio among the initial imposition disposition. As such, the part corresponding to the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of the disposition that has not been extinguished and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to whether the instant disposition is lawful is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.