1. The part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and each additional tax on negligent tax returns corresponding to the revoked part.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim with the Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap9640, and the first instance court confirmed that the disposition of imposition of additional tax on the additional tax on global income tax for the year 2010 and the additional tax on the additional tax on the additional tax on global income tax for the year 2010 and the additional tax on the additional tax on the additional tax on the global income tax for the year 2011 was null and void, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed each of the lost parts of the judgment of the first instance as Seoul High Court 2017Nu663455, and the above appellate court dismissed all the appeals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

3) As to each of the losing parts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2018Du34848, respectively. The said final appeal reversed the part against the Plaintiff and remanded this part of the case to this court, and dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal. (B) According to the above findings of determination, each of the disposition imposing additional tax on global income tax for the tax years 2010, 92, 67,69,79, and additional tax on the erroneous payment for the global income tax on global income tax for the tax years 2011, was confirmed as null and void in the first instance court, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal and final appeal on that part were dismissed. Ultimately, the subject of the judgment by the court was reversed and remanded, namely, the negligent tax on negligent tax returns on global income tax for the tax years 2010, 36,844,2222, and 34,178,179, respectively (hereinafter “each disposition imposing additional tax on negligent tax”).

limited to part.

2. The court's explanation about this part of the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The part concerning imposition of additional tax on negligent tax returns among the lawsuits in this case is lawful.