1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was registered as the Defendant’s representative director on January 2, 2015, and was registered on June 24, 2015.

The Plaintiff did not receive any money from the Defendant in 2015, and the chief of the regional tax office imposed income tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff received KRW 124,422,891 as bonus from the Defendant in 2015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that there is no money received from the Defendant in 2015.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infinite and dangerous, and the obtaining of a judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30803, Jun. 29, 2017). Even if the Plaintiff is rendered a judgment against the Defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, the effect of the judgment does not extend to the tax authority, and the revocation of the taxation disposition does not become null and void by the said judgment. Therefore, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the Plaintiff’s inherent in rights or legal status or

The plaintiff can exercise his right by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition, or by filing a claim for payment of the amount equivalent to the tax amount against the defendant, etc.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.