1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the first fourth or lower of the judgment as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In order to make the judgment of the court null and void a disposition, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively and objectively in violation of important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the pertinent disposition, should be examined in a teleological context, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, the taxation conducted by a person who has no legal relations or factual relations, which are subject to taxation, should be serious and obvious, but if there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead him/her of the legal relations or factual relations, which are not subject to taxation, to be subject to taxation, even if the defect is serious, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if it is necessary to accurately investigate the facts

It cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition that misleads the misunderstanding of the facts is void as a matter of course.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986 Decided July 10, 201, etc.). The following facts acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above and the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, and each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence No. 3, 6, and 7, namely, ① the plaintiff was registered as the only internal director since the incorporation of the company of this case, and this was continued to be maintained after December 29, 2010, which was closed by the company of this case, and ② The "Co. 6" of the "Co. 6", which was drafted on July 1, 2009 at the time of incorporation of the company of this case.