1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant belongs to the plaintiff on August 20, 2012 in 2006.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is partly dismissed among the judgments of the court of first instance as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the appellate court as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

From the fourth bottom of the part, the phrase “the instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”) shall be read as “(the foregoing amount includes penalty tax, and the details thereof shall be the same as the description in the attached disposition details as “(s)” and “amount notified”.

The following shall be added to the first activity following that:

A person shall be appointed.

F. The defendant is still pending in the appellate trial of this case.

On January 9, 2015, each additional tax for the year 2007 through 2010 was revoked ex officio, and on January 9, 2015, each additional tax for the year 2007 through 2010 was imposed again as stated in the details of the imposition of the additional tax, stating the type of and the basis for the calculation of the additional tax.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The grounds for recognition of Nos. 18, 3, and 4 shall be added to the column “The grounds for recognition of Nos. 2 through 3”. The “The foregoing grounds for recognition” in paragraph 1 of Annex 8 is insufficient.

The same applies even if each of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 15, which was additionally submitted by the appellate court.

"in addition".

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful since it was based on the audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection in violation of the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation under the Framework Act on National Taxes. (2) The instant disposition was unlawful since it did not state the type of penalty tax and the basis for calculation of the amount of penalty tax.

On the other hand, the defendant excluded the balance of this case from taxable objects at the time of the previous disposition, and thereafter the plaintiff is recommended by the defendant.