1. The part of the lawsuit in this case regarding the business confirmation request shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay 300,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant married around 1998 and divorced from the husband and wife on July 2012.

B. As from May 27, 1994, the Defendant’s set up “C” for the purpose of steel processing, etc., and closed the business around 2003, and the Defendant established a personal business entity called “C” for the same type of business as the above company and registered it as a business entity of the said business (hereinafter “instant business”).

C. On March 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, etc. at the Incheon District Court.

Around June 2011, the name of C was changed to the Plaintiff, and C was closed on November 30, 201.

On November 16, 201, immediately before the closure of C, the Defendant established and operated “F”, which is engaged in the same kind of business as C, until now.

E. The Defendant: (a) imposed on the Plaintiff regarding the instant business (hereinafter “instant value-added tax”); and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to pay the instant value-added tax in April 25, 201, among the disposition that ordered the Plaintiff to pay the instant value-added tax, KRW 28,812,000 on April 25, 201; and (c) the same year.

7. On October 25, 205, 93,50 won, and 52,00,000 won on October 25 of the same year, and on September 19, 2012, 11, 9, and December 20 of the same year, value-added tax amounting to KRW 180,312,590 was paid in total, including KRW 2,00,000,000, and the head of Incheon Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the total amount of KRW 97,906,840,00.

F. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000, which is a part of the value-added tax of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s determination on the legitimacy of the part of the business confirmation claim is substantial C by the Defendant.