2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The director of the Gangnam-gu Tax Office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction imposed global income tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the business that sells or leases Dtel, which is a building in Seoul, Gangnam-gu and C (hereinafter “instant business”). On October 10, 2006, in relation to the instant business, the amount of global income tax was paid in KRW 65,415,820, value-added tax for the first year of 2003, value-added tax for the second year of 2003, value-added tax for the second year of 2003, value-added tax for the second year of 31,092,580, value-added tax for the second year of 2004, value-added tax for the first year of 1,692,420, total amount of value-added tax for 9,870,190.

B. On the other hand, on the ground that E is the actual business operator of the instant business, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Defendant issued the disposition of imposition of each of the above value-added tax on January 2007, and the head of the Nowon District Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the above global income tax on September 201, and deducted the tax amount corresponding to the revoked portion from the

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-12-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. (1) As seen earlier, the head of a tax office affiliated with the defendant must immediately refund the amount of tax payable to the plaintiff when he/she revokes the imposition of global income tax and each value-added tax against the plaintiff, but deducts the amount of tax payable from the amount of tax payable by E who is not related to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the amount of tax claimed in the claim

(2) The person liable to pay global income tax and each value-added tax related to the business of this case and the person who actually paid the said tax amount are E who is not the Plaintiff but the actual business operator, and the head of the tax office affiliated with the defendant is lawful to deduct the amount of tax payable from the amount of tax payable by E after cancelling the above disposition of imposition. As such, the defendant