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

The interest rate of 20% per annum shall be paid from the following day to the day of full payment.

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part of "the work process of the public official in charge of HH and the existence of causation between the plaintiff and the damage incurred by the public official in charge of HH" in the first instance court's judgment is as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is based on the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The part to be mard;

The State or a local government shall be liable for damages sustained by a victim due to a public official’s breach of his/her official duty within the scope of proximate causal relation. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State or a local government shall comprehensively consider the probability of occurrence of a general result, the purpose of the code of conduct imposing an official duty, the circumstances after the act is foreseeable from the purpose or function of the official duty, the form of the harmful act, degree of damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da36285, Dec. 27, 1994).

In full view of the purport of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s investment in the funds for the operation of the gas station in this case and received periodically an amount equivalent to a certain ratio of profits from DD. The Plaintiff maintained the business registration title of the gas station in the second half of 2009, which is the taxable period of the Disposition No. 3 in this case, and reported the closure of business on April 20, 2010, and the Plaintiff did not assert in the past lawsuit seeking revocation of the Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Guhap1308, its appellate court, and its appellate court) that the Plaintiff was not the actual business operator. In fact, the Plaintiff had to report the closure of business in accordance with the Value-Added Tax Act for a considerable period of time after being aware that the Plaintiff had not fulfilled its duty to report the closure of business and had received a certain amount of monthly income from the gas station in the name of 2009, and the Plaintiff had to report the closure of business within 2000 years.

Therefore, the damage claimed by the Plaintiff is not a disposition due to occupational negligence by KK’s notification of the FF’s application for the business registration, but a disposition is imposed because the Plaintiff did not pay the tax to be paid by himself/herself while continuing the operation of the gas station under its own name. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the breach of duty by the public official and the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.