Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The assertion that the Defendant registered the Plaintiff with the name of the Plaintiff, and that public charges, such as face-to-face and tax, such as the Plaintiff’s face-to-face and tax, are both responsible and payable.

On the other hand, on April 2018, the Plaintiff registered as a business operator with the trade name “C” (hereinafter “C”), and the Defendant operated it and escaped after having reported the closure of business on August 2018, and C received a tax notice to pay KRW 53,257,580 from the Ansan Tax Office on December 5, 2018.

The Defendant, even though did not intend to pay taxes, etc. imposed on C, made a business registration under the name of the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff in return for the absence of intent to pay taxes, etc. imposed on C, and caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff as the Defendant actually operated C and imposed a value-added tax of KRW 53,257,580 on C. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for tort to the Plaintiff, or the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, or to pay damages for delay on behalf of the Plaintiff for the amount imposed on C. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the value-added tax of KRW 53,257,580 imposed on C in accordance with the agreement.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the judgment of the court below, although it is acknowledged that the payment deadline was imposed by the value-added tax of KRW 53,257,580 with respect to C until December 31, 2018, it is not reasonable to acknowledge that the defendant's deception or the defendant alleged by the plaintiff agreed to pay taxes, etc. imposed to C in lieu of the plaintiff's tax imposed on C. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.