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 maintained his/her eligibility as an employment provided policyholder by December 31, 2016, and maintains his/her eligibility as an employment provided policyholder from January 1, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff revised the details reported as the previous capital gains tax on the income accrued from the sale of land in 2017 as the business income tax, and revised the amount of income for the year 2015 as the total income amount of KRW 2,020,910,730, and necessary expenses of KRW 1,845,366,291 as the income amount of KRW 175,54,439.

C. When the Defendant came to know of the fact that the Plaintiff’s global income (non-income from remuneration) for the year 2015 was corrected to KRW 175,540,000 through the National Tax Service, the Defendant calculated the monthly income insurance premium for the employee insured and the monthly insurance premium for the self-employed insured based on the amount of income for the year 2011 through 2013, without deducting any deficit brought forward from the said amount of income for the year 2011 through 2013, and imposed KRW 953,860, and KRW 3,961,350, the monthly insurance premium for the calculation of monthly insurance premium for the period from November and December 2017 to September 2017 on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on March 30, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From 2011 to 2011 due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s alleged business, the Defendant continuously incurred losses carried forward each year due to the financial costs of the Plaintiff. Although the Defendant should calculate the health insurance fee by reflecting the losses carried forward from the financial costs in the instant disposition, it did not deduct the amount.

The instant disposition is unlawful in misunderstanding the legal principles on the substance over form principle and Article 45 of the Income Tax Act, and thus ought to be revoked.

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

C. We examine the following circumstances: