A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the second floor No. 48 and 49 (hereinafter “instant store”) of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On July 12, 2012, the 27 owners of the second floor of the instant commercial building including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant business site”) filed an application for business registration with the “C second floor” and the type of the business as “real estate lease” and received a business registration certificate.

C. On October 13, 2014, the Defendant determined and notified KRW 1,691,000 of the value-added tax for the second period of October 13, 2014, deeming that 6.8% corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share was reverted among the rental income that the instant place of business was provided to the Plaintiff as a leasing business.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s determination on the part seeking the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s name stated in the instant business registration certificate is seeking the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s name indicated in the instant business registration certificate, which can be seen as seeking the cancellation of the Defendant’s acceptance of the application

However, the registration of business under the Value-Added Tax Act is a simple report of business, which is established by submitting a business registration application to the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of the registration certificate after receiving the application is merely an act of issuing a certificate

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2200, Jan. 27, 2011). Therefore, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act of accepting an application for the Defendant’s business registration certificate seeking revocation as a disposition subject to an appeal litigation, and even if deemed a disposition, the Plaintiff’s business registration of this case around February 14, 2014 at least as follows.