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

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment on the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on matters asserted in the trial

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case collected by taxation data based on illegal search and seizure is unlawful, since the plaintiff did not present the search and seizure warrant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the search and seizure warrant and did not notify the plaintiff of the issuance of the warrant and was not granted an opportunity to file an appeal.

(1) According to Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the search and seizure warrant is to be presented to the person subject to the above disposition. According to the evidence Nos. 6 (Co. 6 copy of the search and seizure warrant), the place of search and seizure in this case is the office, laboratory and computer room of the person who opened an open market, including a stock company (hereinafter referred to as "A"), and the articles to be seized and seized are personal distributors, such as the plaintiff, etc. kept in the computer equipment or document records of the above place from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2005. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above person subject to the above search and seizure warrant is to be the person who manages information as the principal office of AA, etc., laboratory and computer room in custody, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant, etc. is not subject to the ruling of the presiding judge of the district court's ruling of seizure or quasi-appeal as the judge of the district court's ruling of the court's ruling of seizure or quasi-appeal 60.

B. The plaintiff asserts that as a supplier of the goods of this case and a substantial business entity, the subject of value-added tax is only AA (hereinafter referred to as "A") and the subject of the tax cannot be a taxpayer.

A taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act (business owner) means a person who supplies goods or services independently (Article 2 (1)) for business regardless of whether it is for profit making.

However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 40, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8, each of the items and arguments in this case, ① individual sellers including the plaintiff have continuously and repeatedly conducted an independent sales act by determining the prices of goods to be sold or goods to be sold and the goods to be sold to the buyers without being employed or delegated by the open market operator, and delivering them to the buyers. Unlike the case of free sale of goods to the Internet portal site, they have freely registered as members and sold them to the AA operator without paying a certain amount of rent every month and pay fees for each sales transaction to the members. ② Open market operator, who is an open market operator, provides the cyber sales place and system only to ensure that the sales transaction between members is conducted by each member's own decision, not to purchase goods to members or to promote the safety and reliability of the transaction between members and to secure the safety and reliability of the transaction and to protect the sales price of goods to be sold or sold to the operator of the Open market, not to obtain the payment for the sale of goods to the seller or the seller.

In full view of these facts, the supplier of goods or services independently in Open Market A shall be deemed to be only the seller of the plaintiff and not AA, which is also an operator of Open Market. On the other hand, the establishment of tax liability does not affect the establishment of the business registration of the operator who supplies goods or services, and the operator of Open Market permitted an individual who does not register the operator as well as the operator to freely join the open Market and sell the goods, and there is no reason to believe that the tax liability of the distributor is transferred to the operator of Open Market. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff, not an operator of Open Market, is liable to pay value-added tax on the sales from the sales from the open Market using the open Market. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.