1. Of the instant lawsuit, the surcharge 26,610 won for corporate tax for the business year 201 and the surcharge 1,846 for the value-added tax for the second term in 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The Defendant is a stock company B (hereinafter “instant company”).

(2) On May 1, 2013, when the Plaintiff was designated as the secondary taxpayer of the instant company on May 1, 2013, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to pay KRW 6,37,780 and KRW 439,69,79,940 in total, and KRW 660,380 in total, KRW 63,770 in corporate tax of the instant company and KRW 26,610 in total, and KRW 43,969,69,690 in total, KRW 1,846,720 in total, KRW 45,816,410 in total, and KRW 45,720 in total, KRW 63,70 in the business year 2011, KRW 70 in the instant company and KRW 26,610 in the value-added tax of the instant company in addition to additional charges (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) The holding ratio of shares by shareholders and shareholders of the instant company is as follows:

C The ratio of the number of shares related to the shareholder C 14,000 shares 35% shares 10% shares 14,000 shares - 14,000 shares - 10% shares - 35% shares 10% shares 14,000 shares - 14,00 shares 10 shares -0 shares 14,00 shares -0 shares 10% shares -

B. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on December 13, 2013, but was dismissed on April 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of each disposition imposing additional dues in the business year 201, KRW 26,610, and KRW 1,846,720, among the instant lawsuit, is lawful, and the additional dues are naturally generated pursuant to the legal provisions without due process of confirmation by the tax office, even if national taxes are not paid by the due date. Thus, the notice of additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal, as a matter of course, without due process.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482 delivered on June 10, 2005). Accordingly, the same applies.