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 the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added “(it is difficult to see otherwise even if the Plaintiff has suspended the use of the name C account after October 19, 2010).”

After the 5th 12th am in the judgment of the first instance, “(Supreme Court Decision 2017Du6991 Decided March 29, 2018 cited by the Plaintiff)” is added to “The Court held that only a mere nominal chief and subsequent incidental acts cannot be deemed an active act attributable to the purpose of tax evasion, and thus, it is inappropriate to invoke the case differently in the instant case.”

See the 5th 14th 14th e.g., the judgment of the first instance added “(the amount so confirmed shall be KRW 253 million as seen earlier).”

The 5th 16th eth 16th eth 16th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

At the fifth bottom of the judgment of the first instance, “one principal,” and thereafter, “for non-business profits” mean “interest, fees, etc. that a person who does not engage in the business of lending money temporarily or contingently lends money” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9230, Mar. 27, 191).

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.