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 reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion was dismissed as “ March 4, 2003.” No. 6 of the first instance judgment No. 2, 2013; and (b) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is stated, except for adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s first tax investigation of gift tax from July 8, 2014 to November 4, 2014 on the source of the Plaintiff’s 2,357,000 won of deposit for lease deposit.

In the process, the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation on global income tax by investigating and investigating the global income tax on global income for the year 2008, and taking the right to enforce a revised global income tax return. The same applies to the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same applies).

Article 81-9 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is unlawful as it does not extend the scope of a tax investigation without any grounds against Article 81-9 and does not go through procedures, such as written notification. (1) A tax official may not extend the scope of a tax investigation under progress, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of tax.

1. Where it is obvious that the taxpayer is suspected of tax evasion;