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

A. On December 12, 2002, the name of the Plaintiff, where the machinery parts manufacturing business chain ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business entity”) had its business registered with its location ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○ on December 12, 2002, and began its business after starting its business. On January 21, 2005, on January 21, 2005, the business was closed on June 19, 2006.

B. In relation to the business of the instant company, the global income tax for the year 2003 to 2005 was reported in the name of the Plaintiff. Defendant Sungdong Tax Office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile notified the Plaintiff of interim prepayment of global income tax or notified the Plaintiff of the payment of global income tax as the Plaintiff did not pay the global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the following sequence 1 and 3 referred to as the “each global income tax notification of the instant global income tax,” and Nos. 2 and 4 referred to as the “assessment of global income tax for each of the instant interim prepayment,” and collectively referred to as the “each of the instant global income tax dispositions”).

No.

Classification

Notice Tax Amount

Grounds for Notification

Date of Notification

Deadline for payment

1

203 - Regularly

93,590

unpaid Notice of Payment

August 6, 2004

04.8.31.

2

204-Interim prepayment

496,790

Interim Prepayment Notice

November 1, 2004

04.11.30

3

204-Regular

2,529,210

unpaid Notice of Payment

August 11, 2005

05.8.31

4

205-Interim prepayment

1,511,000

Interim Prepayment Notice

November 1, 2005

.11.30

C. In addition, in relation to the business of the company of this case, the value-added tax was reported on February 2, 2002 to January 2006 in the Plaintiff’s name, and the head of Si/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the business place, as follows, notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled amount of value-added tax or notified the Plaintiff of the payment of value-added tax (including the determined amount of tax and the additional tax) as the Plaintiff did not pay the scheduled amount of tax to be deducted as at the time of the return of value-added tax (hereinafter the following Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 referred to as “each disposition of value-added tax of this case”; Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 referred to as “each disposition of value-added tax of this case”; and the combined disposition of value-added tax of this case is referred to as “each disposition of this case” in addition to each disposition

No.

Classification

Notice Tax Amount

Grounds for Notification

Date of Notification

Deadline for payment

Whether payment is made or not.

The amount of arrears in attachment report

1

203-1-Final

3,340,070

unpaid Notice of Payment

6, 2003.9

September 30, 2003

Some

2,332,710

2

203-2-Scheduled

1,800,010

Notice of Estimated Notice

o October 25, 2003

2,710,810

3

203-2-Final

2,205,560

unpaid Notice of Payment

5, 204

.31, 204

3,118,440

4

2004-1-Scheduled

1,990,030

Notice of Estimated Notice

April 25, 2004

2,813,890

5

204-1-Final

2,615,650

unpaid Notice of Payment

6, 204

99.30

3,509,990

6

204-2-Scheduled

2,286,560

Notice of Estimated Notice

o October 25, 2004

3,068,330

7

205-1-Scheduled

1,530,530

Notice of Estimated Notice

April 25, 2005

Some

1,777,060

8

205-2-Final

1,715,650

unpaid Notice of Payment

Mar. 10, 2006

206.31

1,931,750

9

2006-1-Scheduled

1,195,400

Notice of Estimated Notice

o April 25, 2006

1,345,980

10

206-1-Final

494,260

unpaid Notice of Payment

d. 8, 2006

September 30, 2006

509,080

D. As above, most of the value-added taxes notified under the Plaintiff’s name were not paid, the head of the Silung Tax Office attached the Plaintiff’s salary by adding the additional dues to the value-added tax amount in arrears on December 27, 2006.

E. Upon the seizure of the above benefits, the Plaintiff claimed a national tax adjudication on February 2, 2007 on each of the dispositions of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim for national tax adjudication”) and dismissed on May 9, 2007, by asserting that the instant business entity was merely operated by ○○, a real business entity under the Plaintiff’s name, and that there was no service of each of the dispositions of this case.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 2-3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 17-1, 20-1, 20-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense of safety

A. The defendants' assertion

Each of the dispositions of this case was lawfully served on the Plaintiff around the date of each notice, and thus, the claim for the national tax adjudication of this case is unlawful as a subsequent claim.

In addition, the notification disposition of each value-added tax by the head of Silung Tax Office and the notification disposition of each global income tax by the head of Sungdong Tax Office is only a procedure for collecting the amount of tax finalized due to the plaintiff's report, and thus,

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The business entity of this case operated by ○○○ in the Plaintiff’s name, and both the return of value-added tax and comprehensive income tax and the service of each of the dispositions of this case was ○○. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have the time limit for appeal since there was no reason to receive each of the dispositions of this case.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole with respect to the above recognized evidence, Gap evidence of Nos. 3-1 through 4-2, 6, Eul evidence of No. 21 to 28-5, Eul evidence of No. 21 to 28-5, Eul evidence of No. 2-1 to 2-9, and witness's testimony of ○○○○○.

1) From December 12, 2002, the ○○○ operated the instant business entity. Since the previous business entity could not register its business under its own name because it was ex officio or closed due to tax in arrears, the business entity, which had been operated prior to such business entity, was unable to register its business under its own name, ○○ obtained permission by lending its name to the Plaintiff, and obtained a copy of the driver’s license from the Plaintiff, and completed its

2) ○○○ has actually operated the instant business entity, and had reported value-added tax and global income tax in the name of the Plaintiff, etc., and had also leased and used the instant business entity under the name of the Plaintiff.

3) The notice of each of the instant dispositions was served by ○○○ directly or through employees of the workplace and neighboring places of business.

4) Each of the instant global income tax dispositions was sent to the Plaintiff’s domicile. However, when the global income tax disposition was sent to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asked ○○○○ to ask the Plaintiff whether the taxes related to the instant business entity were well paid, and the Plaintiff responded that ○○ was aware of the Plaintiff and that he was well aware of the Plaintiff.

D. Determination

Article 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides a period for a request for a trial on a disposition under tax-related Acts, refers to the date on which a person becomes aware of the fact that the relevant disposition was made by notification, public announcement, or any other means. However, if a person, other than the party to the disposition or the person to whom the notice of the disposition was given, raises an objection or makes a request for a review, the period shall be calculated as of the date of receipt of the notice of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1164, Jul. 4, 200; 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 200); if a person to whom the document was served, such as a person liable for duty payment, etc., receives the document and then delegates it explicitly or explicitly to another person, the delegated person shall be deemed to have been duly served on the person to whom the document was served (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1161, Apr. 10, 1998);

As shown in the above facts, the plaintiff allowed ○○○ to register its business under the name of the plaintiff, ○○ to continue to operate its business after leasing its business under the name of the plaintiff, and received notice of payment after reporting value-added tax, global income tax, etc. under the plaintiff’s name, and the plaintiff was also aware of the above circumstances, but did not take measures such as especially reporting the closure of business, etc. as to the registration of the plaintiff’s business owner, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff delegated ○○ or its employees with the authority to receive taxes imposed in relation to the business entity of this case, barring special circumstances. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case shall be deemed to have been delegated to ○○ or its employees until September 30, 206. Since ○○○○ or its employees received the request by ○○○ entrusted with the authority to receive taxes by the plaintiff until the above date, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's respective dispositions of this case were unlawful for the reason that the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the disposition of this case was not unlawful.

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s lawsuits are unlawful, and the Defendants’ safety defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.