1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Evidence No. 15-17 (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the plaintiff in this court, from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court

2) On the other hand, the court below's findings of fact and determination of the first instance court are justified even in light of the foregoing.

A. The Defendant alleged that the actual sales amount from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 constituted KRW 510,513,50,173 (including filing a return for correction) and omitted KRW 67,063,327 by reporting sales amounting to KRW 443,450,173 (including filing a return for correction). The Defendant reported sales amounting to KRW 484,426,30 and omitted KRW 32,93,322 by reporting sales amounting to KRW 451,42,978 (including filing a return for correction) even if the actual sales amounting to KRW 484,426,30 from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013.

In other words, the sales omitted as above is not the sales amount settled between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the defendant's sales amount omitted from the plaintiff.

B. However, in light of various circumstances such as the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the type and period of operating the restaurant of this case, the subject of tax declaration, and the details of the report, etc., even if the Defendant, other than the sales amount that the Defendant reported in the tax office after the previous judgment, was omitted, such sales amount is deemed to be part of the actual sales amount of the restaurant of this case, which was subject to settlement between the Defendant and the former, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was a profit of a club business that was not distributed among the parties to the previous judgment, solely based on the written evidence No. 15-17 and the reply against the order to submit financial transaction information to the Itax Accounting Office of this court, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

3. Conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.