1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

See attached Table 1-1, each of which the Defendant stated on June 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be cited or added in the following paragraphs (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The revised part of the judgment of the court of first instance is 2.2 7 to 8 E (hereinafter “E”) with “AC” (hereinafter “the instant game room”).

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the instant disposition" is used as "attached Form 1-1, each value-added tax and global income tax (including each additional tax)" (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition"), and the attached Form 1. of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by attached Form 1-1.

5 pages 5 of the first instance judgment "K" shall be changed to "K," respectively.

At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

4) The tax base of the Plaintiff’s assertion of deduction such as necessary expenses should be the amount calculated by deducting the costs of 300 million won for the game machine, the rent for the game room of this case, personnel expenses, etc. from the Plaintiff’s revenue. Two acts (except for the part on the table) under the 7th part of the judgment of the first instance, “E” shall be deemed to be “AC”. The judgment of the first instance shall be made as follows: (i) there is no dispute; (ii) the entries of the evidence Nos. 2 through 15, 21, 24, and 25 are written; (iii) the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial; (iv) the testimony of the witness of the party instance trial; (v) some testimony of the witness of the K, the K, and the first instance court’s inquiry on the head of Seongbuk-si Office of November 3, 2016; and (iv) the purport of the entire pleadings [Attachment evidence Nos. 29 and 32; and (v) the testimony of the judgment of the first instance court below as follows 9-1-14.

In addition to the above facts of recognition, there is no reason to acknowledge that the Z, the Plaintiff’s birth, entered into a business takeover agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant game room business or a sales contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s game machine owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Z had paid the price.