약정금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of actual business operator against Defendant B is dismissed.
2. The defendants are the defendants.
1. As to the claim for confirmation of actual business operators against Defendant B, we examine whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate ex officio.
The Plaintiff, even though D’s actual business operator was Defendant B, taxes such as value-added tax and global income tax based on the processed data in 201, and the value-added tax in 2015 were imposed on the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff received a claim related to Defendant B’s outstanding amount from various business partners who were traded in the name of D, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that Defendant B is the actual business operator.
In order to have the interest to confirm the legal relations in the action of confirmation, there should be a danger or omission existing in the claimant's rights or legal status according to the legal relations, and in order to remove the danger or omission, it is necessary to be immediately finalized by the confirmation judgment covering the legal relations, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the nature of taxation disposition, etc., but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the nature of taxation disposition, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of taxation disposition, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of taxation disposition, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
The plaintiff can file an administrative litigation by asserting that his taxation disposition, etc. is illegal, and as stated in the purport of the claim, so long as it cannot remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status present danger and non-explosion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
Therefore, the part on which the plaintiff's actual business operator seeks confirmation as defendant B is unlawful.
2. The plaintiff's defendant B.