1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff served as a public official of the National Tax Service for 30 years from 1974 to 2004, and served as B and the National Tax Service C before retirement.

Since July 26, 2004, the Plaintiff joined a limited liability law firm (hereinafter referred to as the “instant law firm”) and served as a certified tax accountant.

B. During the period from 2007 to 2010, the Plaintiff provided advice on tax or overall management to NATex Co., Ltd. and eight other domestic companies (hereinafter “instant advisory firms”) and received a total of KRW 541,338,880 in return (hereinafter “instant advisory fee”). The Plaintiff deemed it as other income and accordingly included it in the amount of income for each pertinent year, and filed a comprehensive income tax return by applying 80% necessary expenses.

C. However, on April 4, 2012, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s global income for the year 2007 through 2010 on the ground that the instant advisory fee income constituted business income, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff on April 4, 2012 of global income tax of KRW 62,349,180 (including additional tax), global income tax of KRW 31,050,250 (including additional tax), global income tax of KRW 33,413,130 (including additional tax) for the year 2009, global income tax of KRW 33,413,130 for the year 209, global income tax of KRW 16,820,110 for the year 2010 (including additional tax).

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.

On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 28, 2012, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on February 7, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion was retired from office in 2004 and has been working as a standing adviser in the law firm of this case until now. It is not a position to conduct business separately, and only the company requires expertise accumulated in past public service life.