1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the revocation of the disposition rejecting the rectification of global income tax for the 2009 and 2010 shall be dismissed, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur, who was operated as an exporter of Ansan-Tech, from September 15, 1990 to September 30, 201, from September 30, 201. From 2009 to 201, the Plaintiff refunded the total amount of KRW 183,925,220 (i.e., KRW 51,652,120 for year 209 to KRW 57,695,990 for year 201 to KRW 74,57,110 for year 201). From 2009 to 2011, the Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax by including the aforementioned refund in the total amount of income for each taxable period.

B. As a result of the customs investigation conducted in 2014, the head of the Busan Customs Office confirmed that the Plaintiff was unfairly refunded customs duties even if he/she did not correspond to the producer of the exported goods, and issued a notice of additional collection (hereinafter “instant additional collection”) on June 19, 2014 to the Plaintiff on the aggregate of KRW 248,494,810 (i.e., KRW 50,518,360 for the year 2009, KRW 90,788,030 for the year 2010, KRW 107,188,420 for the year 201, and KRW 107,18,420 for each additional tax). The Plaintiff paid the additional collection on July 7, 2014.

C. On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that KRW 248,494,810 of the instant surcharge is included in the necessary expenses for 2011 and that the Plaintiff seeks refund of KRW 63,423,412 of the global income tax (hereinafter “instant claim for correction”). However, on September 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the refusal of the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the necessary expenses are the taxable period to which the date when the expense becomes final belongs.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the global income tax should be revised by deducting the relevant customs refund from the total amount of income in each taxable period from 2009 to 2011. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant penalty surcharge should be included in the necessary expenses for the taxable period to which the date of collection belongs.

【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute.