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 has been engaged in the lease business of Nos. 104 and 105 of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and of No. 101 of the building C on the ground of four parcels, including Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and Kuwon-si, Suwon-si.

B. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant determined that the value-added tax related to the above lease business was unfairly refunded to the Plaintiff, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 12,977,120, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, value-added tax 27,450,890, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, value-added tax for the second term of 2004, and value-added tax 25,563,770 for the second term of 2010.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Eul in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In this case where it is not confirmed that the Plaintiff signed and sealed the special postal delivery certificate under the Postal Service Act, etc., the Plaintiff did not have any record of being served with a notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions of this case by the Defendant, and each of the dispositions of this case is invalid.

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

C. As to the administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity confirmation thereof, the Plaintiff was liable to assert and prove the grounds for such administrative disposition’s invalidity, the Plaintiff was unable to receive a tax payment notice in the lawsuit claiming that the tax disposition was null and void due to the absence of a

The burden of proof for the fact that the service has been made to another address shall be borne by the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant dispositions was delivered by registered mail to the Plaintiff on December 5, 201, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the absence of service, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the health account, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2-1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 and 5.