1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part concerning which the plaintiff asserts in the court of first instance as to this case’s additional assertion as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff’s payment of construction equipment rent to C and D was unlawful, although the Plaintiff owned both the Plaintiff’s construction machinery and ancillary equipment, and the ancillary equipment was owned by C and D, and that the Plaintiff and C and D jointly purchased the said construction machinery and ancillary equipment. In the end, the Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case on the premise that the amount of the Plaintiff’s payment of construction equipment rent to C and D based on the instant memorandum of Agreement was made differently from the fact.

In light of the various circumstances acknowledged in the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the content of the joint investment agreement between the Plaintiff, C, and D stated in the instant written agreement is not false, and that the total value of the instant supply was not paid as actual equipment rent but paid as profit distribution among the partners. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the plaintiff notified the correction of corporate tax on the premise that the total value of the supply in this case is income distribution for C and D, and the defendant is the taxable item of the distribution of profits.

The instant disposition is unlawful, since it failed to bear the burden of proof as to the facts.

In the disposition of this case, the corporate tax in the disposition of this case shall be included in the expenses, on the ground that the Plaintiff reported the total sum of the supply values of this case to the expenses, and that the Defendant cannot be viewed as the equipment rental fee claimed by the Plaintiff.