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

The written evidence No. 1 of the Gu office Gap is written.

A. The Plaintiff was registered as a business owner of B; from November 1, 2013 to September 20, 2014; and from January 1, 2015 to November 24, 2015, as an employer of four major insurance businesses, such as health insurance premiums.

B. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the 4th insurance premium on a monthly basis. The Plaintiff paid only a part of the insurance premium from March 2014 to November 2015, and did not pay KRW 4,753,100, out of the health insurance premium from May 2014 to November 2015, KRW 3,162,590, out of the insurance premium from May 2014 to November 2015, and KRW 1,031,020, out of the employment insurance premium from November 2013 to March 2015, and KRW 294,30, out of the industrial accident insurance premium from March 2015.

C. From February 20, 2014 to November 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a total of 52 demand notices to the Plaintiff and 63 times to collect 63 times from February 3, 2014 to November 28, 2018.

As the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s deposit, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to compensate for the loss of each of the above insurance premiums on January 18, 2018, but the Defendant rejected the request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit for revocation of ex officio determination as to whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known.

(1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “The Defendant imposed and collected four premium on the Plaintiff regularly from November 2013 to November 2015, and notified the Plaintiff of demand and collection of unpaid premium on several occasions.” It can be presumed that the Plaintiff was aware of the disposition of taxation at the time of each month’s notice. At the latest, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant to take loss in relation to unpaid premium, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the unpaid premium was unpaid and the fact that the attachment was seized therefrom, around January 18, 2018.

However, it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 16, 2018, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the said lawsuit.

3. In conclusion, the instant lawsuit is even after the filing period has expired.