1. The Defendant’s global income tax amounting to 81,85,060 won, and 17 April 2013, 2007, effective as of April 16, 2012, effective as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 9, 2010 to August 9, 2010, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and confirmed that the non-party company calculated the processing cost.

On February 16, 2012, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office deemed the bonus for the plaintiff, the actual representative of the non-party company, and notified the changes in the amount of income to the non-party company on February 16, 2012, as the amount of 2006, which was the amount of outflow from the company, according to the appropriation of processing costs.

B. On April 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) notified the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office of taxation data; (b) determined the Plaintiff’s global income tax amounting to KRW 81,55,060 for the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (c) on April 17, 2013, determined global income tax amounting to KRW 469,781,840 for the Plaintiff for the year 2007.

(hereinafter “Second Disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 2 is effective (whether service of notice for tax payment is legitimate);

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) issued a tax payment notice to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2012.

② The Defendant sent a notice of tax payment by registered mail to the Defendant, and the post office visited the Plaintiff’s domicile on April 22, 2013 and April 23, 2013, but was unable to serve the document due to the closure or absence of the document, and the Defendant was returned the notice of tax payment on April 29, 2013.

On April 30, 2013, the defendant sent a tax notice by registered mail, but returned it, it is difficult to serve a tax notice within the exclusion period of imposition.

The defendant lawfully served the notice of the second disposition by public notice.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (A) There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not receive a tax payment notice of the first disposition by registered mail.

[The service details of the decision of collection (No. 2) shall be prepared.