According to the records, on May 29, 2003, the applicant filed an application for registration of the establishment of the trade name of this case with the business registration certificate attached to the general taxable person (hereinafter referred to as the "application for registration of the establishment of the trade name of this case") and the above registry office can be acknowledged as rejecting the application for registration of the establishment of the trade name of this case by applying Article 159 subparagraph 2 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act to the commercial registry office of this court on May 29, 2003, by applying Article 203-0857469 to the Commercial registry office of this case, "the applicant is an attorney-at-law."

2. The claimant's assertion and judgment

A. Applicant's assertion

On February 28, 2002, the applicant leased the seven stories above from the owner of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of an attorney at the Seoul Bar Association on March 12, 2002. On March 13, 2003, the following day to the head of the Seoul Seocho-gu office of tax office, the location of the office, the 7th floor of the Seoul Seocho-dong, the 1600-3 commercial building, the 1600-3 commercial building, the 5th unit office of the Seocho-gu, the 5th unit office of business, the 5th unit office of the applicant registered its business, the 214-05-15617 unit, and the 5th unit office of the Seocho-gu, the 5th unit office of the applicant provided various physical and personal facilities to unspecified customers and provided legal advisory services to them, and the 5th unit office of the applicant continues to be the 5th unit of commercial activity, as the 5th unit of the commercial act.

B. Facts of recognition

According to the records, as alleged by the applicant, on February 28, 2002, the applicant leased the office on the 7th floor of the above building from the owner of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on March 12, 2002, after completing the registration of the lawyer with the registration number No. 6967 on March 12, 2002, on March 13, 2003, to the head of the Seoul Seocho-gu District Tax Office, on March 13, 2003, the name of the office, the location of the office, the location of the office, the 160-3 large-scale office, the 7th floor of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the office, the business registration number of which was registered as the 214-05-15617, and the 214-214-05-15617, the legal counsel and the legal counsel's income tax paid therefrom.

(c) Markets:

(1) Key issue: Trade name (referring to the meaning that is distinguished from the part of trade name in business registration) under the Commercial Act refers to the name of a company used by a merchant for business activities. Therefore, the issue in this case is whether a merchant of a lawyer can be a merchant in the event that an attorney-at-law is equipped with a merchant facility and conducts a lawyer's act in a merchant manner.

(2) First, the circumstance that business registration is made and value-added tax is paid and the relationship between merchant's performance

Value-added tax is imposed on the supply of goods and services or on the import of goods (Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act), and a person who supplies goods and services, regardless of the existence of profit-making profit, is obligated to pay value-added tax (Article 2 of the same Act), and a business operator under the same Act must make business registration (Article 5 of the same Act). Therefore, an attorney-at-law has registered his/her business in order to supply services as legal counsel and legal counsel services as an attorney-at-law and paid value-added tax shall not be allowed to become a merchant (Article 5 of the same Act).

(3) Second, limit of merchant nature under the Attorney-at-Law Act

An attorney-at-law is a so-called specialist with professional knowledge and knowledge, and the society (law) provides that only those persons recognized as having certain knowledge and skills through strict examination are entitled to perform such duties and punish them to perform such duties. This aims at protecting the public interest of those engaged in the professional, rather than to protect the interests of those engaged in the professional, the society (law) may limit profit-making nature at the request of a certain professional, at the request of a public interest in return for guaranteeing the exclusive status of those engaged in the professional. Because of the public interest of a certain degree, profit-making nature is not a problem of legislative policy. The attorney-at-law who is called a special law in relation to the Commercial Act provides that an attorney-at-law who is not a special law shall defend basic human rights and realize social justice (Article 1), that an employee is freely engaged in such duties, and that an employee is not a director or an attorney-at-law who is not a person engaged in commercial activities but a person who is not an attorney-at-law with the purpose of registration or administrative disposition of a certain person (Article 2).

Therefore, when a person qualified as a lawyer registers as a lawyer to the extent that he/she performs his/her duties as a lawyer, he/she shall not engage in commercial activities and the lawyer shall not be a merchant. If a lawyer intends to engage in commercial or profit-making activities other than that of a lawyer, he/she shall obtain permission from the local bar association to which he/she belongs or suspend his/her duties (Article 38 (3) of the Attorney-at-

3. Conclusion

The fact that the legal service business among those described in the applicant's business at the time of applying for registration of the trade name in this case that the applicant's business means the performance of the applicant's duties as an attorney-at-law is not a commercial activity. The fact that the applicant's duty as an attorney-at-law cannot be a commercial activity, and that the applicant's remaining business is an incumbent attorney-at-law who is registered and operated by the applicant. Thus, at the time of applying for registration of the trade name in this case, the applicant submitted data that the applicant obtained permission from the local bar association to which he belongs for profit-making activities. Thus, the registration officer's rejection of

Therefore, the applicant's objection shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Song-dae