1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “The stocks of this case” under Section 2, Section 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as “the stocks of this case”; “1.8% per annum until April 17, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint,” under Sections 3 and 4 of the 8th 19-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 611, Mar. 15, 2017) refers to Article 19-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 611, Apr. 17, 2017), and the part of the judgment shall be cited as it is based on Article 19-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 665, Mar. 19, 2018).

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is accepted in the grounds of appeal, and the defendant's claim of the counterclaim is dismissed in the grounds of appeal. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim are dismissed in the judgment of the court of first instance, and "1.8% per annum from May 13, 2016 to April 17, 2017" in the judgment of the court of first instance is "1.8% per annum from May 13, 2016 to March 14, 2017," and it is obvious that "1.6% per annum from the following day to April 17, 2017" is a clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.