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

In full view of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and evidence Nos. 1-1, the following facts may be acknowledged:

A. On May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff sold 190,000 shares of ○○○○○○○○○ Company and 2.5 million shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company. On August 17, 2006, the Plaintiff subsequently confirmed and reported capital gains from KRW 63,717,714,60, when acquiring 26,00 shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ issued shares in the process of an all-inclusive share swap, and acquired 26,040,00 shares of 63,717,714,605 shares.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the payment deadline upon filing the said final return. The Defendant first paid 1/3 of the tax amount payable on May 30, 2007 by September 30, 2007, and the payment was made in installments for three months from that time to November 30, 2007, and the payment deadline was extended by six months from November 30, 2007, but the Plaintiff did not pay the first installment payment amount of KRW 2,123,840,480 until September 30, 207.

C. The Defendant revoked the approval of the extension of the above payment deadline and notified the correction of the capital gains tax of KRW 6,386,813,110 on October 31, 2007 as the payment deadline, and as the Plaintiff did not pay it, sent a reminder on November 11, 2007 as the payment deadline.

D. In such circumstances, on November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the deferment of collection to the effect that the amount of delinquent taxes would be paid in installments for the period of June 11, 2008, July 11, 2008, and August 11, 2008, and against this, the Defendant rejected the said application for deferment of collection on November 13, 2007 on the ground that it does not constitute justifiable grounds for serious business crisis.

2. Determination on this safety defense

In order for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case to the effect that the disposition of this case is not an object of appeal, since the defendant's refusal notice to the purport that the disposition of this case does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal, it shall be considered that the administrative agency's refusal to take action upon the citizen's affirmative action constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, the application shall be the exercise of public power or other equivalent administrative actions, and the refusal shall cause any change in the legal relations of the applicant, and the citizen shall have the right to request the withdrawal of such action under the law or cooking (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1316 Decided October 11, 207), and the deferment of collection (amended by Act No. 8832 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 15 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the taxpayer's right to request a deferment of collection is prohibited, and thus, the taxpayer's right to request a deferment of tax collection and the taxpayer's defense that the tax payment of this case can not be determined by the Presidential Decree.

3. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) intended to sell the shares of ○○○○○○○○○ Company each month for the purpose of paying transfer income tax by selling the shares held by the Plaintiff; (b) but the sale of the shares did not lead to activation of the share price and transaction volume; (c) the major shareholder promoted the sale of other assets held as it could not be ruled out that if the shares are sold on a large scale, the sale of the shares could cause the decline of stock price and the loss of management right; (d) but the sale of the shares requires considerable period of time due to the e-mail. However, the Plaintiff asserted to the purport that the Plaintiff’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for deferment of collection is unlawful since it was an agreement to borrow the shares from the financial institution as collateral for raising funds necessary for the payment of transfer income tax, which is sufficient time to raise funds, and if necessary for deferment of collection, the shares or other assets held by the Plaintiff as collateral. If the Defendant takes compulsory execution procedure following the collection procedure of national taxes, the Plaintiff is deemed to have suffered any loss due to the decline of stock price and business confusion.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 15 (Deferment of Collection)

C. Determination

Article 15 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if a taxpayer is unable to pay national taxes prior to the commencement of tax payment period on the grounds falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a tax office may defer the tax payment or divide the determined tax amount to be notified under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, "if the taxpayer suffers a serious loss to his property due to a disaster or theft", "if the taxpayer suffers a serious loss to his business" in subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3, "if the business is in a serious crisis" in subparagraph 4, "if the taxpayer needs long-term treatment due to a disease or serious injury of his family member," "if the mutual agreement procedures are in progress with the foreign competent authority under the treaty concluded for the avoidance of double taxation" in subparagraph 5, "if there is a reason corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 4", and "if there is a reason corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 15 (1) 6 of the National Tax Collection Act" in subparagraph 1 through 4, "if the taxpayer is unable to carry out the comprehensive collection procedure without delay in consideration of all the reasons referred to 4.

However, due to the Plaintiff’s desire to dispose of assets at a high price due to the sale of large-scale stocks or despite the economic depression, the difficulty in selling assets due to a large-scale share sale, which the Plaintiff claims as the reason for deferment of collection, is attributable to the Plaintiff’s desire to sell assets due to the sale of stocks, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute a requirement of deferment of collection stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 15(1) of the National Tax Collection Act on the ground of this fact. In addition, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for deferment of collection is lawful, and such disposition is not different even if the Plaintiff is in consultation with a financial institution for borrowing funds, or there are circumstances where the Plaintiff is able to provide collateral, and there is sufficient means to pay taxes.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.