1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, with the exception of adding the judgment as referred to in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1) Article 143(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010) stipulates that Article 143(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “a business operator who newly commences a business in the pertinent taxable period shall apply simple expenses to “a business operator whose aggregate

After that, Article 143(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 31, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22580, if a new business operator has commenced a business in the relevant taxable period more than a certain scale, he/she may keep evidence of major expenses and keep records in order to prevent the reduction of income tax through the application of simple expense rates, if the amount of income of a new business operator falls under the standard for the relevant taxable period from among the new business operators subject to double-entry bookkeeping, he/she shall be excluded from the application of simple expense rates, and Article 12 of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23580, Feb. 2, 2012) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23580, Dec. 31, 2010).

(b).