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

The existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in administrative litigation, is an ex officio matter as a litigation requirement and can not be a confession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15499, Jul. 27, 1993). According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant’s notice of imposition of charges for compelling the performance of a building (98,204,350 won) prepared on December 29, 2015 and the recipient’s notice of imposition of charges for compelling the performance of a building (98,204,350 won) issued on December 30, 2015 is recognized.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 and Eul evidence No. 1 showed the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the non-performance building B (the plaintiff of the representative director in Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu) every year from 2012, and the defendant, on December 29, 2015, imposed a non-performance penalty (98,204,350 won) on the non-performance building B, and on December 29, 2015, again imposed a non-performance penalty (98,204,350 won) on the non-performance building B, and the addressee of the notice of imposition stated the plaintiff's name as the representative director without expressing the company B's trade name in the tax notice column for notice notice, but it did not impose the non-performance penalty on the plaintiff who is a natural person (the defendant's performer also stated that the disposition of imposition of the above non-performance penalty was imposed on B, and that the plaintiff's individual

According to the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant imposed KRW 98,204,350 on the Plaintiff’s individual, a natural person on December 29, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as seeking revocation of the non-existent disposition.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.