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

Since the 1970s, the plaintiff operated the above claim D and did not separately register the business. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, who was the self-employed person of the wife, was only the defendant at around 2003, who was only under the above business registration name of the above business place, but is currently claiming that the defendant is the owner of the above D. Thus, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of the transfer of the above business registration name of the above D.

On the other hand, business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is intended to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and to secure the taxation data (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu228, Jul. 26, 1983). This is established by filing a report of business facts with the business operator's registration application prescribed by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the business operator, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu416, Jun. 14, 1983). No reason exists to deem that the registrant has acquired any right or ability due to such business registration, and Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act do not provide for the regulation allowing the change of the name of the registered business operator or the procedure for the change of its membership or equity shares of the joint business operator. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the implementation of the procedure for the transfer of business registration under the above place of business.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.