1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On August 3, 2011, the Defendant's second term portion against the Plaintiff on February 2006.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on August 29, 2002 for the purpose of specialized management, etc. of rearrangement projects.

B. From April 7, 2011, the Defendant

4. A tax investigation conducted with the Plaintiff up to 26.28, the Plaintiff received KRW 4.35 billion from 2007 to 2008 from the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “A district Promotion Committee”) for the business year of 2006 to KRW 70,000,000 from 206; (2) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5.41 billion in total from 2006 to 2009; (3) the Plaintiff omitted sales of KRW 5.441 million in total from 2006 to 2009; and (4.42,1,208,100 won in total; and (74,274, value-added tax for the business year of 207, value-added tax for the value-added tax for the business year of 208,207, 2004, 208, 2094, 2007, 2005.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On October 28, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal. However, the said claim was dismissed on May 30, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) regarding the provision of services to the Committee for Promotion of Zone A (A), the Defendant determined that the establishment of the basic plan was made on June 30, 2006, and that the designation of the rearrangement zone was completed on December 28, 2007. However, the establishment of the basic plan was made on December 18, 2009, and the designation of the rearrangement zone was not carried out.