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 juristic person with the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling financial automation machinery, etc., which is a bank and ethyl enzym Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) as prescribed by the Banking Act.

B. On November 20, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Nonparty Company for cooperation with the business of operating automated machines every year. The main contents of the agreement are to enable the Plaintiff’s customer to make cash withdrawal or balance withdrawal through cash automatic withdrawal or automatic withdrawal machines installed at public places, such as convenience stores, subway stations, etc., and to distribute 15% of the fee paid by the customer (hereinafter “instant fee”) and 85% of the fee paid by the customer to the customer, and 85% of the Defendant.

C. The plaintiff recognizes only 15% of the fees of this case as the revenue amount of the plaintiff who is subject to education tax, and the same year from April 1, 2009 in the second taxable period of February 2009.

6. Period of 30.30 and period of taxation (from July 1, 2009 to the same year).

9. Each education tax attributed to 30.30. D. The Defendant reported and paid each education tax. However, on the premise that the entire fees of this case constitute the amount of the Plaintiff’s revenue, the Defendant issued a correction notice of KRW 10,087,050 of the education tax belonging to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2014, KRW 9,890,390 of the education tax belonging to the second year on August 25, 2009, and KRW 10,087,050 of the education tax belonging to the third year on November 18, 200

E.

Accordingly, on November 21, 2014 and February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for each of the instant dispositions, but on April 27, 2015 and the same year.

5.6.The Tax Tribunal has received a decision of dismissal respectively;

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including all of the serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that 85% of the fees in this case is the revenue amount of the non-party company acquired in return for the provision of services, such as cash withdrawal, to the plaintiff's customer, and can be viewed as the revenue amount of the plaintiff.