1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Tobacco consumption tax belonging to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2015 for the year 2014 for the Plaintiff on June 5, 2015.

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated are the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where a part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 "E" for the second reason shall be made by "H", and Part 11 "J", respectively.

Article 12-13 of the 2nd 13th 2nd 13 of the 2nd 2nd 2, "the part, including the entry in the order," includes 8,441,79,480 won for tobacco consumption tax of 2014 (including additional tax of 2,350,494,080 won for additional tax of 215,070,070 won for additional tax of 2,045,652,700 won for additional tax of 107,535,100 won for additional tax of 3,045,65,100 won for additional tax of 3,535,100 won for additional tax of 13-14, "the entry

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the reasoning for this part of the relevant statutes are as follows, and the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 6 through 16 and 8-9) is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding some of the following to the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Part 3. The following shall be added to the 14th page:

4) The Plaintiff did not fall under the “manufacturer” under Article 60(1) of the Local Tax Act, and is not obligated to pay tobacco consumption tax accordingly, and thus, the part on additional tax returns on tobacco consumption tax in this case’s disposition is unlawful

5) F, while importing nicotine concentration, KRW 23,796,00 in total, shall be deducted from the amount of the instant disposition.

B. First, we examine whether the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for tobacco consumption tax as F and joint business operators (Article 150 Subparag. 4 of the Local Tax Act).