2. All remaining appeals as to the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

2. A. The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for 2004 on December 1, 2009 against the plaintiff, the imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for 2005 on December 15, 2009, and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 2005 on December 15, 2009 on the plaintiff is null and void. The imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for 2004 on the plaintiff on May 11, 2010 and the imposition of KRW 00 of the global income tax for 200 on the global income tax for 205 are null and void.

B. Preliminary claim: The head of Seocho District Tax Office revokes the imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009, the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second year of 2004, the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first year of 2005, and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second year of 2005 on December 15, 2009, respectively. The imposition of KRW 00 of the global income tax for the year of 2004 against the Plaintiff by the head of Namyang District Tax Office shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) and (b) of 5.B and 6. part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (the second half below) are the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the second half below; and (b) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

[2] Determination as to the conjunctive claim against the director of the tax office of Namyang-ju

1) If the title to the income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such title belongs, the person to whom such title actually belongs shall be deemed the taxpayer (Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, the fact that the title to the transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and that there is another person to whom such title belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu68, Jun. 26, 1984). Therefore, in this case, the Plaintiff must prove that the AA issued the tax invoice by stealing by stealing using the name of the Ethton.

2) As to sales tax invoices for the PP Design Group (State), (State), Korea Broadcasting Network, (StateO, and (StateY Trade)

According to the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-1 to 17, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-7, Eul evidence 1, 2-2, Eul evidence 6-7, witness KimB's testimony of the court of first instance, which can be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of oral argument, the representative director of the XX Design Group (the State) KimB testified testified to the effect that the XX Design Group was giving or receiving the price for actual transaction with the YM 2004, (the State)O submitted a confirmation that it actually traded with the YM 1-2, 204 (the evidence No. 4-1) to the defendant, and that it reported the purchase amount under the YM 1-2, 204, 1-2, 205, 205, 3-1, 200, 3-1, 200, 205, 3-1,000,000,00

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) As to the sales tax invoice for the Dolsan Industries (State) and Dolsan Industry

(4) In light of the following circumstances: Gap's evidence No. 9, Gap's 10-2, Gap's 11-18, and Eul's 19-2, the court's response to the first instance court's order for the submission of taxation data, i.e., the amount of the sales tax invoice received from the 10-10-2, which was issued by the 10-1, the defendant's 200-2, and the defendant's 10-2, the defendant's 10-2, and the defendant's 3-2, the defendant's 1-2, the defendant's 1-2, the defendant's 1-2, and the defendant's 3-2, the defendant's 1-2, and the defendant's 1-3, the defendant's 200-2, the defendant's 1-2, the defendant's 200-3, and the defendant's 20-3, the defendant's 1-200-3, the defendant's 2.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the issues tax invoices, the total amount on the sales tax invoice for the △san and △△ Industries (=00 won +000 won) cannot be calculated as the Plaintiff’s revenue amount. Therefore, the imposition of global income tax for the 2004-year global income tax in the instant global income tax disposition is unlawful as it is based on a different premise.

(v) a reasonable amount of tax;

If a reasonable global income tax is calculated by deducting 000 won from the Plaintiff’s revenue amount of the sales amount for the △san and △△ Industries, the imposition of global income tax for 2004 years shall be revoked in entirety among the disposition imposing global income tax of this case, as shown in the separate sheet.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the main claim against the defendant in this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the main claim against the defendant in Namyang Tax Office shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is inappropriate in part as it is so unfair, the part of the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff in relation to the conjunctive claim which falls under the order of cancellation among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax for 204 among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of this case is revoked, and all of the remaining appeals