2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

A. Korea-U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-U.S.-U.S.”) received three copies of the tax invoice of 200,064,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from the construction business of △△ in the second taxable period of 2003, and reported the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax for the year 2003 by including the instant transaction amount in the deductible expenses.

B. The director of the tax office of interest in Si did not withhold the tax invoice of the non-party company from the processing tax calculation without real transactions, and added the corporate tax to the non-party company's corporate tax amount, and disposed of the transaction amount of this case to the plaintiff who was the representative director of the non-party company, and notified the defendant, who

C. Accordingly, on January 31, 2008, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 74,620,310 as well as KRW 7,235,710 as income tax of KRW 74,620,310 as well as KRW 7,710 as income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition for imposition of heavy resident tax in this case is appropriate for the confirmation of nullity thereof;

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864 of Feb. 29, 2008), the resident tax subject to income tax is a local tax payable to the head of a Si/Gun (in cases of a special company or Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax. If the head of a tax office determines the income tax by the method of imposing a notice of imposition in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Act on Income Tax, it shall be deemed that the head of the relevant Si/Gun imposed a notice of imposition in addition to the resident tax to be imposed and collected, even if the head of the relevant Si/Gun imposed a notice of imposition in accordance with the method of correction, determination, etc.

Therefore, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is against a non-qualified person.

3. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the tax invoice of this case was prepared according to the actual transaction, the disposition of this case by the first party is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion, considering that the plaintiff who is the taxpayer claiming that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the defendant to present evidence and materials related to the illegality of the defendant disposition.

In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the court below found that: (a) Park Il-dong, the representative of the Doe Construction Business's business registration certificate, was investigated in the distribution tax office, and there was no actual transaction record in the above Doe Construction Business's business; and (b) the same relation relation stated that he issued a tax invoice by stealing his own business registration and reported the value-added tax; and (c) therefore, the defendant, the tax authority, who is the plaintiff, must prove that the tax invoice of this case, which the plaintiff received from the Doe Construction Business, was falsely prepared without real transaction. Therefore, it is necessary to prove that there was a real transaction equivalent to the transaction amount of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim to nullify the imposition of resident tax among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and thus, the part of the claim to nullify the imposition of global income tax is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.