1. On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff specified the date of disposition as December 23, 2015, but all of the evidence and arguments set forth in subparagraph 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B (a) Company B was incorporated on May 23, 2008, and on June 1, 2009, the head office was changed to D. 402 of the D. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director from June 1, 2009 to October 16, 2010 on the corporate register of the instant company.

B. On the ground that the instant company issued or received a processed sales tax invoice related to the return of value-added tax during the second-year period of February 2010, the director of the tax office of public interest and the head of the tax office issued or notified the instant company of the change in the amount of income by disposing of KRW 305,695,000, which was divided in proportion to the period during which the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director, among the unclear amount of the outflow from the company as to the inclusion of the pertinent sales amount in the gross income for the business year 2010, and imposed corporate tax on the instant company. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income. On December 10, 2015, the head of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 5, 2016, but was dismissed on March 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely a representative director on the registry of the company of this case and its actual operator shall be E.

E registered the Plaintiff with a high credit rating as the representative director in the name of the company of this case in order to participate in the tender of the original environmental resources construction, and operated the company of this case. After the renunciation of the tender, the name of the representative director of the company of this case was changed to E in the name of the representative director of the company of this case, who was not required to be the credit rating of the representative director.

Therefore, the plaintiff is therefore the plaintiff.