1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation of the notification of additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2012, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 351,865,740 won on a limited company B (trade name before the change: limited liability company C; hereinafter “B”) in the business year of 2006. However, upon the failure of this, the Defendant designated the oligopolistic shareholder D and E (one of the total number of outstanding shares of B, 65% owned, 25% of the total number of issued shares, and the said shares combined) as the secondary taxpayer of B.

B. D and E transferred the instant shares to F around October 2005, and F asserted that “B transferred the instant shares to G again on November 2005,” and submitted documentary evidence to the Defendant.

Accordingly, on May 7, 2013, the Defendant designated G as the secondary taxpayer of B’s oligopolistic shareholder B.

However, on July 1, 2013, G filed an objection that the actual owner of the instant shares was the Plaintiff and only lent his name to the Plaintiff. On September 16, 2013, G deemed that the actual owner of the instant shares was the Plaintiff according to the result of re-investigation, and on September 16, 2013, G designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the corporate tax for the business year 2006, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount equivalent to B’s share ratio (90%) out of the corporate tax amount in arrears.

C. In addition, on September 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for value-added tax; (b) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 122,82,520,520, and additional dues KRW 49,374,540, which correspond to the share ratio (90%) of the said value-added tax amount; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the payment.

The notice of payment of value-added tax for the second period of February 2006 is "the disposition of this case", and the notice of payment of additional dues is "the notice of payment of additional dues".

(D) On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2015, but rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim by the Tax Tribunal on June 25, 2015. The Plaintiff was rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim by the Tax Tribunal. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, A