The reasoning of this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases: (b) it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) it refers to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to this, the plaintiff denied the value of evidence of the above written confirmation, "the plaintiff received the premium from 13 transportation business operators under credit and managed the above business operators to receive transportation service charges from the other party using the plaintiff's account. However, even though there is a separate taxpayer liable for omitting the amount of revenue deposited in the above account, the plaintiff argued that "the plaintiff prepared a written confirmation differently from the fact that the whole amount of revenue of this case is the price for the transportation service provided by the plaintiff due to a tax official in charge of OOO tax," but since the plaintiff did not submit the documentary evidence even though he was given sufficient opportunity for proof in the trial, the plaintiff cannot accept the above argument of the plaintiff, and there is no other circumstance to deny the value of the above written confirmation that the defendants used as taxation data, so the disposition of this case based on the above written confirmation is legitimate."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.