1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to both corporate tax of 2007, corporate tax of 89,342,540, corporate tax of 2008, corporate tax of 74,472,290, corporate tax of 2008, corporate tax of 8,295,380, and corporate tax of 2010, as stated in the purport of the claim. However, the court of first instance filed a lawsuit on the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 8,295,380 among them, and the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 89,342,540 for corporate tax of 207, corporate tax of 2007, corporate tax of 74,472,290 for corporate tax of 208.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the argument at the appellate court as set forth in paragraph 3, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

The following shall be added to the 13th judgment of the first instance. The following shall be added to the 25th judgment:

Article 43 (Non-Inclusion of Bonuses, etc.) (4) The remuneration paid to the officers of a non-permanent corporation shall be included in the calculation of losses except for the cases falling under Article 52 of the Act. The following amounts shall be added under the 28th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court:

6. Where money and other assets or services are lent or provided without compensation or at an interest rate, tariff, or rental rate lower than the market price (excluding the short sentence omitted);

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the above evidence has a strong probative value, and L's confirmation document (Evidence No. 4) cannot be seen as false, inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence to deem that B performed its duties as auditor, and that F, as the taxpayer, did not have worked as auditor in the door-to-door (Evidence No. 3-1) prepared by the defendant's employee and the defendant's employee.

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition,

The burden of proof for the establishment of facts is to the tax authorities.