1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on January 4, 2002 as a company engaging in the wholesale and retail business of household appliances, and was dissolved on December 1, 2010. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the said company from the time of its incorporation until the time of its dissolution.

B. On the ground that C omitted a report on KRW 497,712,00 among the sales revenue in 2005, the director of the tax office, as the "amount of outflow from the company belonging to the representative director," disposed of the income as a "amount of outflow from the company belonging to the representative director".

The head of Sung-dong Tax Office notified the plaintiff of the decision of 154,771,260 won of global income tax for the year 2005.

(hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff’s delinquent tax due to the instant taxation prior to April 2018 is KRW 269,649,640 of global income tax, including additional dues, KRW 25,883,840 of local income tax corresponding to global income tax, and KRW 295,53,483,483 of global income tax (hereinafter “instant delinquent tax”).

【Ground for recognition】In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 6-1 and 2-2, and each order to submit taxation information to the same head of the same district tax office and the head of the same district tax office at the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The main point of the argument is that the Defendant operated the Plaintiff’s name by lending C, and thus, the relationship similar to the delegation was established between the original Defendant and the original Defendant. Since the Plaintiff incurred an obligation or loss without negligence due to the instant taxation while handling delegated affairs, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the delinquent tax in this case to the Plaintiff, as seen below. 2) However, the circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant lent the Plaintiff’s name to the Plaintiff and operated C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3.2