1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is registered with the tax authority as a C business entity engaging in the wholesale and retail business of wired telecommunications equipment in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building 201.

B. From June 12, 2008 to November 29, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff filed a declaration of under-declaration of import price by importing the gift certificates for non-electric use (hereinafter “instant goods”) on 22 occasions each “the import declaration number”; and (b) imposed a disposition imposing a total of KRW 41,514,410 (including additional taxes) as indicated in the “amount of imposition” column on December 15, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 6, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff lent his identification card to D at the request of D, a plaintiff's reference, around March 2007, and opened a bank account.

D, however, after completing business registration with the Plaintiff’s business operator, imported the instant goods.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant goods, and the Plaintiff is not a taxpayer of the instant disposition.

In addition, the Plaintiff was not served with the notice of tax payment of the instant disposition.

Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void.

3. Determination

A. In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity confirmation thereof, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for such administrative disposition’s invalidity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 decided May 13, 2010, etc.). B.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 17 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff was in the fourth-year course of the social welfare department of Cheongju University around June 2008, when the goods of this case were imported. From January 16, 2009 to January 8, 2010, the plaintiff worked as a social welfare worker in E at Sinju University. From September 2009 to November 201, the goods of this case were finally imported.