1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, which was established on September 20, 200 and engaged in trade business, travel business, etc. and was ordered to be dissolved on December 1, 2014, and imported 1,000 dollars per ton (1,000 through 1,015 USD) from B (hereinafter “instant export company”) an exporting company located in China (hereinafter “instant export company”) from November 19, 2012 to October 7, 2013.

B. From October 25, 2014 to November 24, 2014, the Defendant conducted an corporate review on the Plaintiff, and as a result, confirmed the fact that the price of the instant goods was significantly lower than that of the same and similar goods imported at a similar time.

Accordingly, on June 25, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff prior to taxation that the price of the instant goods that the Plaintiff reported pursuant to Article 30(5) of the Customs Act and Article 24(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act would be denied, and that the Defendant would rectify and notify the amount of KRW 148,51,30, value-added tax amounting to KRW 47,853,580, and penalty tax amounting to KRW 46,346,610.

C. On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the said request on September 3, 2015, and on September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 147,816,830 and penalty tax of KRW 31,315,260, value-added tax of KRW 47,629,850 and penalty tax of KRW 17,057,140 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant, but not accepted. On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service on the said request, but the said request was also dismissed on December 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff merely lent the name of the import declaration, etc. to D (mutual name) who actually performed the import business of the instant goods, and is not an actual owner, and thus, the Plaintiff is not a taxpayer.