1. The Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 3,134,730 on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2005, and reverted to the disposition of imposition of KRW 3,134,730 for the year 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “instant company”) from July 27, 1999 to July 27, 2002.

B. The director of the Namcheon District Tax Office added 14,40,000 won to the plaintiff in the business year of 2001 as deductible expenses and added 2,073,280,000 won to gross income for the business year of 2002, while he imposed 14,40,000,000 won as gross income for the business year of 2001 as gross income and 2,073,280,000 won as gross income for the business year of 2002 as gross income for the business year of 2,073,280,000 as gross income for the business year of 2,09,413,333 won as deductible income for the plaintiff who is the representative director. Accordingly, on January 3, 2005, the defendant issued a disposition imposing 3,134,730 won as global income tax for 201 as global income tax for 202 and 548,60,00 won as global income tax for 2.

C. On March 24, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the dispositions of this case with the Defendant stating that “self-reliance was merely registered as the representative director of the company of this case upon request by C, which is the private village, and the actual representative of the company of this case is C,” and on April 12, 2005, the Defendant rendered a decision that “each of the dispositions of this case was determined based on the contents of the decision by requesting a reinvestigation to conduct a reinvestigation on the Namcheon Tax Office, which notified changes in income amount of this case” (hereinafter “the decision of this case”). The summary of the decision of this case was that “the Plaintiff was working in D corporation from January 20, 201 to January 30, 204, and the director of the Namcheon District Office did not work as the representative director of the company of this case, and thus, it was unreasonable to regard the Plaintiff as the actual representative of the company of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not pay wages to the Plaintiff during the business year of this case.