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 is a member of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and 2 lots C 12 commercial building management body located.

C on June 18, 2003, the 12th reconstruction association filed a lawsuit against the owner of commercial building, including the plaintiff, for the reconstruction of apartment units except for the commercial building (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap45156) (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap45156). In the process of the above lawsuit, the conciliation between C 12th reconstruction association and the owner of commercial building, including the plaintiff, was concluded as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”), and the said lawsuit was concluded.

- Strategy -

2. The owners of commercial buildings, including the Plaintiff, agree to change the main land owned by the reconstruction association C1 and 2 to the housing site.

3. C 1/2 reconstruction association shall pay 4,750,000,000, including the Plaintiff, to the owners of commercial buildings who are scheduled to implement the project, to obtain the consent of the owners of commercial buildings, including the Plaintiff, in such a way that it does not impede C 1/2 reconstruction association’s reconstruction project and authorization and permission, and to the owners of commercial buildings, including the Plaintiff, within three months after the completion of the period of conclusion of the contract between C 1/2 reconstruction association and the members of the housing association.

-Tye:

B. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the remodeling subsidies following the instant adjustment was not reported as global income tax amounting to KRW 57,880,000 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”). On April 8, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 8,312,903 as to the instant subsidies reverted to the year 2008.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection on July 14, 2014, but received a decision of dismissal. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is mediated.