1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 1, 2010, the head of the high-sea tax office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction imposed and collected global income tax of KRW 5,454,680 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”) on the Plaintiff on June 1, 201, and imposed and collected global income tax of KRW 44,935,220 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”) on and from December 1, 201, and ③ imposed and collected global income tax of KRW 126,502,010 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 3”) on and from December 2, 2011.

Then, on October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 31,000,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000, and KRW 50,000 on October 27, 2017 (i.e., KRW 31,000,0000,000) (i.e., KRW 181,000,000,000) (hereinafter referred to as “the amount to be paid in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The amount to be paid in the instant case is paid as global income tax for the year 2008 and 2009 according to each disposition of the instant 1 and 2.

At the time of the disposition No. 1 of this case, the plaintiff was making a move-in report in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B (hereinafter "B apartment") B (hereinafter "B apartment"), but actually resided in D apartment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant's notice of tax payment of this case No. 1 was issued to B apartment security guards affiliated with B apartment, not only the plaintiff'

In addition, at the time of the disposition No. 2 of this case, the plaintiff made a move-in report for the E Apartment-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E Apartment-gu (hereinafter "E apartment") F, which was actually residing in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G-gu. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant's notice of tax payment of this case No. 2 was served to the E Apartment-gu security guards, not the plaintiff's actual residence.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice under each of the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is legitimate.