1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the real estate owned by the said company (265,160,138 square meters, etc. on September 17, 2010, on the basis of the right to collateral security against Shin Ann&D Co., Ltd., and received dividends of KRW 1,457,609,138, totaling KRW 192,449,138, which is the date of distribution.

B. From May 9, 2016 to December 21, 2016, the head of the Leecheon-gu Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff on the 23th of the same month, and concluded a tax investigation by omitting global income tax return with respect to the part of the interest out of the said dividends. On the 25th of the same month, a notice of the result of tax investigation (the corrected tax base KRW 197,113,681, the calculated tax amount KRW 48,453,165, the anticipated notified tax amount, KRW 79,485,682, the “instant notice”) was sent to the apartment security guards located in the Plaintiff’s domicile following the following month

C. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) issued a notice of tax payment that imposed global income tax of KRW 79,485,680 (including additional tax of KRW 31,122,463) and local income tax of KRW 7,948,560 for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”); and (b) sent the same by registered mail to the Plaintiff’s domicile on the 26th of the same month; (c) the registered mail was received by the Plaintiff’s apartment security guards residing in the Plaintiff and kept them in the guard room on the 27th of the same month.

The part on imposition of global income tax in the disposition of imposition based on the notice of tax payment in this case is deemed the disposition in this case.

(D) On May 27, 2016, the Defendant’s employees sent a tax notice again to the Plaintiff to deliver the tax notice to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2016, and visited the Plaintiff’s domicile, but the Plaintiff did not deliver it to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had no address. On the same day, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the local area through telephone conversations with the Plaintiff on the same day that the Plaintiff could receive documents after June 2, 2016 as he/she left the local area due to funeral. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, and evidence 2-