1. The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff was registered as a director in the corporate register B, and on October 19, 2001, registered as a representative director on December 8, 201, and was registered as the representative director until the registration of dissolution of the said company was completed.

B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the above company around August 2007, and as a result, disposed of the bonus to the Plaintiff and imposed and notified the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) around March 2008.

C. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a complaint to the effect that “The Plaintiff was registered as a representative director on the corporate register of the said company, but was registered on the corporate register of the said company without any actual operation, and was registered upon the request of C, the actual owner, and was not changed to the representative director due to the failure to process D’s administrative affairs, and thus, the instant disposition of taxation was merely unfair.”

Accordingly, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the grievance settlement stating that “ insofar as it is evident and objective to deem the Plaintiff as the representative in the name of the Plaintiff, as a result of the review of the evidentiary materials and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, registered as the representative director at the time based on the relevant statutes, cannot be revoked (hereinafter “instant notification”).”

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

2. Judgment on the legitimacy of the primary claim

A. Defendant Safety Defense Plaintiff asserted that the rejection disposition and its substance are identical to that of a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and sought the revocation of the instant notification.

As to this, the defendant cannot be viewed as a disposition.