1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company that manufactures ship and manufactures shipbuilding equipment.

Upon entering into a contract with the Defendant for a president system, the Defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax, global income tax, etc. imposed on the president for the supply of the services on behalf of the Defendant, while handling the accounting, tax treatment, etc. of the small president’s workplace that supplies services on behalf of the Defendant.

B. From January 2016 to April 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the establishment of a president with the Plaintiff and supplied the Defendant with the service.

Value-added tax that has not been paid after being imposed on the Plaintiff due to the supply of the above services is KRW 25,619,360 for principal tax; KRW 6,926,010 for additional dues imposed until June 30, 2019; global income tax is KRW 1,370,425 for principal tax; and KRW 322,620 for additional dues imposed until June 30, 2019.

(Total Amount of KRW 34,238,415, total principal tax amount of KRW 26,989,785). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the result of tax information replys, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the said tax imposed on the Plaintiff who provided the service as the president of the lawsuit according to an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay the tax on behalf of the president. As such, the Plaintiff’s compensation for damages ought to pay the amount equivalent to the tax imposed on the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the plaintiff's assertion only by examining the judgment and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff'

(In addition to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff himself/herself prepared a written confirmation stating that "62,581,313 won, which is the amount for the plaintiff's value-added tax, etc. to be paid by the defendant on February 24, 2017, should be appropriated for the amount of the plaintiff's tax paid by the defendant on behalf of the defendant). Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified.