A. On November 21, 2007, the Plaintiff was appointed as a director or a representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) on December 31, 2007, but resigned from the representative director on December 31, 2007 and resigned from the director on December 2, 2009.

On or before December 12, 2007, the Plaintiff presented a false contract and withdrawn KRW 500 million from B by a cashier's check in the form of short-term lending to false customers and advance payment, but returned KRW 100 million out of February 2008, and the remainder KRW 400 million (hereinafter "instant KRW 400 million") did not have been returned until now.

B. On November 1, 2012, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office deemed that the instant KRW 400 million belonged to the Plaintiff in 2008, disposed of the Plaintiff as bonus and notified the change in the income amount B.

Based on this, on May 14, 2014, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office imposed global income tax of 177,563,375 won on the Plaintiff in 2008, and the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed local income tax of 17,756,330 won on the Plaintiff in May 14, 2014.

(2) Each of the following facts: (a) the imposition of global income tax and imposition of local income tax (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”); (b) the imposition of global income tax and imposition of local income tax; hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”); (c) the absence of dispute; (d) the statement in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 4, and 8; and (e)

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. The Defendants: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was in the position of employee B, was dismissed from B’s representative director in the year 2008; and (b) collected KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff in February 2008; and (c) the remainder of the damage claim (400 million won) was renounced; and (b) determined that the amount of KRW 400 million was reverted to the Plaintiff in the year 2008; and (c) issued each of the instant dispositions

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the plaintiff owned 4.60% of the shares issued by Eul as a shareholder who is not a major shareholder of Eul in 2007 and owned 4.60% of the shares issued by Eul as representative director on Nov. 21, 2007.