1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Amount of income received in the taxable period following the disposition, which is 98,784, 500 71,145,160 27,639,340 52,010,010,32,090,90,955 19,919,145 60,270,430,430, 445,870 16,824,560,560 in 2011;

A. From 2009 to 2011, the Plaintiff reported business income to the Defendant during the taxable period as shown in the following table (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant income”).

B. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant income was actually earned by the Plaintiff from Company B (hereinafter “instant company”); and (b) rendered a disposition imposing KRW 18,300,650 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) of global income tax for the year 2009, global income tax for the year 2015; and (c) global income tax for the year 2010 and KRW 5,408,120 of global income tax for the year 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for a trial against the instant disposition to the Tax Tribunal on November 5, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 4, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 6, Eul evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 6-1-3, and Eul evidence No. 6-1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff provided services to the instant company and received compensation therefor. Thus, the instant revenue ought to be deemed business income.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing large amount of taxes at the present year after filing a business income return without any notification to the instant company is procedural error and should be deemed as a result of abusing the State’s right to tax collection.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) judgment 1.