1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff was the business owner of D’s adult amusement room (hereinafter “C”), who was a business owner of D’s adult amusement room (hereinafter “instant entertainment room”) at the time of interested parties, who started the business and completed the business closure report on September 18, 2006.

B. On March 5, 2007, Silung Tax imposed KRW 636,819,570 on the instant entertainment room on the Plaintiff on January 2006.

On February 11, 2008, a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said taxation was filed under the Plaintiff’s name (Seoul District Court 2008Guhap1468), but the judgment dismissing the said claim was rendered on February 11, 2009, and on November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2009Nu10859) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On October 6, 2009, the Sin He had attached all the rights to shares 2,933 shares of the YA and shares owned by the Plaintiff to collect the amount in arrears of the value-added tax.

As of October 2013, the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount of value-added tax reaches KRW 636,819,570, additional dues of KRW 19,104,580, increased additional dues of KRW 458,509,80 in total of KRW 1,114,43,950.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 12 (including a serial number if there is no separate indication; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the order to submit taxation information to the director of the tax office for the first time interest, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the name of the business operator of the instant entertainment room, and the Defendant actually operated it and paid part of the profits to the Plaintiff. However, around August 2, 2006, the Defendant discontinued the operation of the instant entertainment room and completed the business registration in the same name and operated another entertainment room at the same place on September 22, 2006, and the said business relationship was terminated on September 18, 2006 at the latest. Accordingly, the Defendant’s remaining property distribution following the completion of the said business relationship to the Plaintiff.