1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2013, Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was a corporation established for the purpose of advertising agency business, etc., which was closed ex officio on July 30, 2015, and was in arrears with value-added tax from the second to the first period from 2013 to 2015.

B. 1) According to the Plaintiff’s statement of changes in stocks, etc. of the instant company, it stated that the Plaintiff was holding 100% of the shares of the instant company as of December 31, 2013, and the said company did not report the details of changes in stocks thereafter. 2) The Plaintiff was appointed as an internal director of the instant company on October 25, 2013, and resigned on March 3, 2014. According to the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income statement in 2014 from February 3, 2014 to July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was receiving KRW 17,400,000 from the instant company as of February 3, 2014.

C. On August 25, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company, the director of the regional tax office designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the instant company on August 25, 2015, and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 968,250 of the value-added tax for the first period of 1st, 2014, KRW 2,043,250 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2014, KRW 2,043,250 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2014, and KRW 78,640 of the value-added tax for the first period of 1st, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the director of the regional tax office designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer of the instant company B

(hereinafter the Defendants’ imposition of the above value-added tax is collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to each of the dispositions in this case, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 9, 2015, but all of the appeals were dismissed on December 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a lending of the name of the shareholder upon Nonparty C’s request. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a beneficial shareholder of the instant company, but a nominal shareholder.

2.2