1. The sum of the value-added tax indicated in the attached disposition imposed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is KRW 2,158,858,090.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a nonprofit corporation established for the purpose of protecting the lives and property of citizens by preventing hazards caused by gas and systematically promoting gas safety technology development and gas safety control.

B. Pursuant to Article 29(2) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, the Plaintiff is receiving annual contributions to the expenditure budget exceeding the revenue budget for the purpose of preserving project costs and operating expenses from the government.

The details of the Plaintiff’s taxation, tax exemption, and contributions (hereinafter “instant contributions”) from 2006 to 1 January 201 are as follows:

(1) The amount of tax-exempt business revenue for a taxable period of 97,147,716 50,010,370,370 9,749,346,378,000 103,145,2325,310,677 11,164,555 36,670,000 107,746,746,095,371,04610,808,808,04933,567,0007,567,0009, 2009, 159,447,47,648, 2009, 10,159,44464, 78, 308, 208, 305, 208, 200, 100, 9478, 3084, 1947

C. The Plaintiff calculated the input tax deduction amount and reported the value-added tax by dividing the input tax amount, which is common to taxable businesses and tax-free businesses (hereinafter “common input tax amount”) according to the supply value of taxable businesses and tax-free businesses, excluding the instant contributions from the VAT base. The Plaintiff’s details of the input tax return from February 2, 2006 to January 1, 201 are as follows.

(2) A tax-free business-free business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related (tax-free business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related (tax-free business), 10,084, 737 2,250, 745, 314, 889 338, 7932,180,310

D. From February 2006 to January 201, 201, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not deduct the common purchase tax amount equivalent to the instant contribution.