1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 25, 2007, the Plaintiff registered a business with the trade name “B”, the location of “B”, “Incheon Gyeyang-gu,” and the type of business “the steel product processing business” as “the steel product processing business and the creative business.” On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff discontinued the business ex officio.

B. On May 2013, the Plaintiff was separated from the House of Government Taxation, the Defendant of the Office of Government Tax Administration with respect to the business income related to B.

On May 28, 2009, the global income tax of 2,788,915 won for the year 2008, and the global income tax of 36,855, and 245 won for the global income tax of 2009, May 28, 2010, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant report”). C.

The defendant collected and notified each of the above tax amounts on August 5, 2009 and August 5, 2010 to the plaintiff who did not pay the above returned tax amount. D.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant additionally imposed and notified the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 24,918, and global income tax of KRW 14,383,727 for the year 2008.

(hereinafter “instant increased or decreased disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] 【No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. As to the claim against the disposition Nos. 1 and 2 in the annexed list Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant is seeking confirmation of invalidity of the amount identical to the amount reported by the plaintiff himself as to global income tax which is the method of filing a return. This is an unlawful defense, since there is no defendant's act causing direct change in the plaintiff's specific rights and duties, and there is no possibility to seek confirmation of invalidity.

B. Although the Plaintiff expressed that the disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of the [Attachment List Nos. 1 and 2] was a “assessment disposition” through the purport of the claim, it is actually a collection disposition as seen earlier, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim may prejudice the purport of seeking nullification of each collection disposition

However, there is a problem.