1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following 2. height judgment and additional judgment, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts and additional judgments

A. 1) The part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance was deleted from the part 2 of the 9th to the part 7th "," and the part of the 9th to the 12th "no land" in the part 9 of the 9th judgment. After the 13th " also, it is difficult to view the 14th " Singapore corporation as a mere Domination," and the 10th "B corporation" in the first 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance "Nos. 5, 7, 2, 8, 24, 26" as "Nos. 7, 2, 24, 26" and "Nos. 8 and 5 of the 9th 13th 13th 20 to the 12th 209 Domination of the National Tax Act," and the 14th Domination of the 12th Domination of the evidence.

3. The tax investigation in the first instance judgment in the year of 13, first instance 7, first instance 16, first instance 17, second instance 1 through second instance 2013, "The tax investigation in the year of 2013" is respectively dismissed as "the part of corporate tax for the business year of 2009" among the tax investigation in the year 2013, and the part from "the time" to "the time" to "the 10th 9th 9th 15th "the time" and the part from "the tax investigation in the year 2013" to "the 13th 20th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 7th 201.

B. Additional determination ( Determination as to whether a field verification in 2014 constitutes a duplicate tax investigation) 1 even if it is legitimate to conduct a tax investigation in 2013 according to the Defendant’s assertion, as follows.