1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. A request for participation by the plaintiff’s assistant intervenor shall be permitted.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 17, 2013 to June 15, 2013, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted the consolidated corporate tax investigation against the Plaintiff for the business year from 2009 to 2011.

The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office at the time of the plaintiff (the trade name before the change: C corporation), notified the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office of the taxation data that the relevant amount (hereinafter referred to as the "payment of this case") constitutes a processing transaction, on the ground that the representative director D, executives and employees E, B (the plaintiff supplementary intervenor, the plaintiff supplementary intervenor, the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the "B") and F (hereinafter referred to as the "executive officers and employees of this case") were returned from G (the "H") who is the plaintiff's sewage supplier, from the second to second in 2009 to the second in 2011.

B. As the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice on the instant payment amount in a manner that lowers the construction cost, the head of Gangnam Tax Office: (a) calculated the tax base and tax amount, such as the non-deduction of the supply amount (1,050,909,090) equivalent to the instant payment amount from the input tax amount of value added tax, and the non-deductible of the corporate tax when calculating the corporate tax, and (b) calculated the tax base and tax amount in August 1, 201, the Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing value-added tax for the second period from 2009 to 2011 and imposed corporate tax for the second year from 2009 to 2011.

On August 12, 2013, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of changes in the amount of income that the Plaintiff disposes of the instant payment as bonus to the officers and employees of the instant case, such as the entry of the details of the change in amount of income (attached Form 2).

C. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Do613) on November 1, 2013, which is dissatisfied with the imposition disposition of value tax, imposition disposition of corporate tax, and notice of change in income amount.

On May 19, 2016, the Tax Tribunal accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion related to the payment of this case, and accepted only a part of the remainder of the allegations, and imposed the first VAT in 201 and on May 201.