1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. The reasons why the court uses this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance

[Supplementary Use] Part 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) shall be deleted.

The third 18th 10th 10th 1st 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 2

The Defendant was dismissed. However, on November 3, 2017, after the judgment of the first instance was rendered, the Defendant issued a reduction or correction of the amount exceeding KRW 70,415,210 (including additional taxes) and the amount exceeding KRW 7,039,670 (including additional taxes) for the special agricultural and fishing villages tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The Defendant issued a reduction or correction of the amount of the tax imposed on March 2, 2015, as amended by the reduction or correction disposition on November 3, 2017, as of March 2, 2015.

(i) the Act;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the court's use of this part of the related Acts and subordinate statutes are 2-B of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for deletion of a claim, this shall be cited as it is.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasons why the court uses this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, except for the cases where the 6th to 7th to 6th to 7th to 6th to 6th to 7th as follows. B of the judgment of the first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[6] The creditor financial institutions consultative council of the company of this case (hereinafter “the council of this case”)

On March 14, 2011, the second meeting was held on March 14, 201. At the above meeting, the case of the issue of reorganization of claims (the proposal under subparagraph 1), the case of funding new funds and granting of options to conversion into investment (the proposal under subparagraph 2), and other matters (the proposal under subparagraph 3).