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. From September 11, 1997 to May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff was registered as a business entity engaging in construction business under the trade name “B” (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On the ground that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of KRW 35,00,000 as at the time of filing the global income tax return for the year 2008, and KRW 652,970,00 as at the time of filing the global income tax return for the year 2009, the Defendant issued a correction notice of KRW 56,096,680 as of June 14, 2012, and KRW 16,971,640 as of September 7, 2012, respectively, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was under 30 years of age at the time of registration of business in the name of the Plaintiff as to the instant business establishment, and that at the time of registration of business entity as above, the Plaintiff was working in another company with a computer protocol, and that the passbook in the name of the instant business establishment was managed and used by the Deceased, etc., the actual business entity of the instant business establishment is not the Plaintiff, but rather the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff

As such, the instant disposition based on the premise that the actual business operator of the instant workplace is the Plaintiff is unlawful. (2) Moreover, even if global income tax is imposed on the Plaintiff on the instant workplace, the loss of the real estate contract amount of KRW 2 billion incurred by the Deceased Company D, which was operated along with the instant workplace, should be deducted at the time of calculating the global income tax on the Plaintiff.

B. According to the principle of substantial taxation as to whether the actual business operator of this case is the deceased, the taxpayer’s confirmation ought to be based on the legal substance, not on appearance, and thus, the ownership of income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and actually attributed.