1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where part of the judgment is changed as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On April 8, 2013, the second 20-21th 20-21 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff issued a correction and notification respectively to the Plaintiff of KRW 33,923,630, and KRW 347,842,760, global income tax for the year 2009, which reverts to the Plaintiff.” The second 2nd 20-21st 20 of the judgment of the first instance court stated, “The Plaintiff issued a correction and notification respectively of KRW 33,923,630, global income tax for the year 2007, and KRW 347,842,760, global income tax for the year 209 (the additional number is omitted).”

B. On the third 14-15th 15th 15th 3th 14-15th 15th 15th 200, the instant disposition was unlawful since it did not receive interest,” and the part that “the above 585,000,000 won was not paid as interest, and thus, the part that constitutes the above 585,00,000 won among the instant disposition was unlawful.”

C. No. 14-19 of the 7th trial decision of the first instance court, "Therefore, the disposition of this case, premised on the plaintiff's acquisition of interest of KRW 585,00,000 to KRW 400 million by the time of the registration of actual transfer of ownership, is unlawful, and the global income tax for 2009 shall be calculated again after deducting the above interest of KRW 585,00,000 from the global income amount, and since the documents submitted by the parties alone cannot be calculated with legitimate tax amount, all of the dispositions of this case shall be revoked."

In addition, in the first instance trial, witness B testified to the effect that the Plaintiff did not receive the above 585,000,000 won from B as interest, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, and the aforementioned testimony in the second instance is reasonable, and the interest in B as to this case, and as seen earlier.