1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party B”) is a company that had its place of business from October 1, 2002 to Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and fourth floor and engaged in general construction business.

The plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the above company from the incorporation to dissolution of the non-party company.

B. As the non-party company did not report corporate tax for the business year 2008 due to the business shortage, the head of Dongjak Tax Office closes down the non-party company ex officio as of December 31, 2008, and as of December 31, 2008, the representative director of the non-party company as of December 31, 2008, considered the balance of the paid amount as KRW 480,410,00, and the recognized interest rate as KRW 43,236,90, and disposed of the total of KRW 523,646,90 as bonus and notified the defendant of the taxation data.

On December 31, 2007, the amount of provisional payments by the representative as of December 31, 2007: ① the balance of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 31, 2007, ① the balance of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 516, 800,000, ② the amount of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 31, 2007, ② the amount of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 2008, ③ 26,540,000, the amount of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 31, 2008, ④ the amount of the provisional payments by the representative collected by the representative as of December 31, 200, ④ 480,410,000 (1) the balance of the provisional payments by the representative as of December 31, 200 (3) the amount of the provisional payments by the representative’s

C. On May 18, 2013, the Defendant issued a revised notice of global income tax of KRW 203,825,730 (including additional tax) to the Plaintiff in 2008.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on October 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Gap evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had already transferred the non-party company D on January 2007, and had not completed the registration of the representative director only. Thus, if the provisional payment occurred after the above point of time, it shall be deemed that both belongs to D.

(b) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes;

(c) the board;