1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was established for the purpose of manufacturing semiconductors and computer input devices, etc., and Plaintiff B registered in the corporate register of Plaintiff Co., Ltd. as an internal director from the time of incorporation to September 30, 2013.

B. On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff Company: (a) filed a preliminary return on KRW 324,116,77 of the value-added tax for the second period of October 23, 2013 to the Defendant; but (b) failed

Accordingly, on December 3, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Company of KRW 327,908,940 of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 27,908,940 in addition to KRW 324,116,77 of value-added tax for the Plaintiff Company’s non-payment of KRW 3,792,166.

C. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined Plaintiff B as the oligopolistic shareholder (100%) of the Plaintiff Company; (b) designated Plaintiff B as the secondary taxpayer for the amount of delinquent taxes for KRW 327,908,940, the amount of taxes in arrears for the second period portion of value-added tax in 2013, the amount of taxes in arrears for the Plaintiff Company pursuant to Article 39 Subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) and notified Plaintiff B of the payment

(B) The Defendant Company’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2013 and collection of delinquent taxes against Plaintiff B are all referred to as “instant disposition.”

Since then, 164,50 won out of the value-added tax for the second term of 2013 327,908,940 won of the Plaintiff Company and 163,39,550 won remain unpaid amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 18-1 through 5, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff Eul asserted that he was appointed as a representative director in the form of the plaintiff corporation when the plaintiff Eul, who is the husband of the plaintiff corporation, was not involved in the operation of the plaintiff corporation.

Since then, C is requested by D to allow human resources supply business under the name of the Plaintiff Company, which is a corporation, and D.