1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the circumstances of the disposition, relevant laws, and treaties are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the rejection disposition against corporate tax for the business year 2013 is legitimate

A. The part of the Defendant’s defense seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting a claim for correction is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, since the tax base and tax amount to be claimed for correction against the corporate tax for the business year 2013 is nonexistent.

B. In full view of the following, even if the Defendant rejected the claim for confirmation of the amount of carried-over deduction related to corporate tax for the business year 2013, the Plaintiff does not have the effect of taxation, and thus does not infringe the legal interest. The Plaintiff maintains the tax base and tax amount reported at the time of the initial return of corporate tax for the business year 2013, the amount of tax payable at the time of the initial return of corporate tax for the business year 2013 as well as the application for the claim for rectification (Evidence 1-3), and there is no evidence to deem the tax base and tax amount to be corrected as to corporate tax for the business year 201

3. Of the instant dispositions, the reasons for the court’s explanation as to whether the rejection disposition against corporate tax for the business year 201 and 2012 is lawful are as follows: “The instant disposition” in the first instance court’s 12th 12th 12th 12 is “the rejection disposition against corporate tax for the business year 201, 2012”; “2011 to 2013th 13th 13th 13th 2011” is “the business year 201, 2012”.