The plaintiff is omitted in C, and the defendant is the former husband of C.

C and the defendant around February 2007, when teaching school, reported marriage on May 29, 2009.

At the time of the curriculum with C, the Defendant had already operated three subordinate businesses of E or F, such as operation of D in the name of C.

In the course of operating G, the Defendant issued six copies of false tax invoices and delivered them to C, who is the nominal owner of D, and C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on April 24, 2009.

C In February 11, 2015, on February 11, 2015, a lawsuit for divorce was filed on February 11, 2015 (this court 2015ddan410, hereinafter referred to as "previous divorce lawsuit") due to the conflict between interest holders, their unpaid amount and family issues, etc. imposed more than KRW 700,000 in excess of pension premiums, health insurance premiums, value-added tax, earned income tax, etc.

The previous divorce lawsuit has been concluded in the appellate court with the content of divorce and division of property.

On the other hand, H, the business name of which was the Plaintiff, was the location I of Tong-si, the type vessel processing, the opening date of the business, January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the allegations in Gap’s Nos. 1 and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings was leased to the Plaintiff’s name upon the Defendant’s request. The Defendant operated H in the name of the Plaintiff who operated the shipbuilding yard from January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013.

The Defendant imposed value-added tax, global income tax, etc. on the Plaintiff due to the issuance of false tax invoices related to H, omission of declarations, etc. (i.e., value-added tax amounting to KRW 115,354,750 (i.e., value-added tax amounting to KRW 21,53,430) (i.e., value-added tax amounting to KRW 6,216,707,320, global income tax amounting to KRW 79,70,320).

When the defendant's assertion is preparing for closure of business, the plaintiff himself/herself can be seen as operating.