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

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows.

A. The height part

○ From 4th to 20th, the first instance court's decision No. 13th to 20th.

2) The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant workplace constitutes “the taxable pleasure place,” which is the place subject to individual consumption tax under the Individual Consumption Tax Act.

Under the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be permitted to expand, interpret or analogically without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9537, Jan. 24, 2003). The requirements for taxation and the procedures for imposition and collection must be meaningful and clear and shall not be used without permission for indefinite concepts or general provisions.

Each of the above provisions refers to a business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages to the extent that the place of business concerned constitutes an entertainment drinking house business as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, i.e., a business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, which is a business of employing entertainment workers or establishing entertainment facilities, and customers are allowed to sing and dance. The plaintiff asserts that the above requirements should be added in consideration of the progress of revision of the Individual Consumption Tax Act or the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the purpose of legislation, etc., and the individual consumption tax should be regarded as a taxable entertainment place only for the purpose of consumption of sing and singing down, but the individual consumption tax law decides to impose individual consumption tax on the place of entertainment such as entertainment drinking houses to achieve its legislative purpose, and it is reasonable to view that it is not permitted under the principle of no taxation without law to add the requirements or procedures to the place of consumption of sing and singing down, which is an abstract concept, and therefore, whether the place of business in this case "the taxable entertainment place" is a business of constructing and selling alcoholic beverages facilities.

○ From No. 6 of the first instance court ruling No. 9 to No. 9 of the same page.

On the other hand, since it is recognized that a large number of customers are admitted to this act, the place of business of this case cannot be considered as a sound cultural space, it cannot be interpreted that the place of business of this case like the place of business is not subject to individual consumption tax.

B. Additional parts

○ Part 6, paragraph 15, of the first instance judgment:

【Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million (Seoul Western District Court 2015 J. 2015 Mo○○○○○) on the facts constituting a crime that she engaged in entertainment bar business in collusion with ○○○○ without obtaining permission (Seoul Western District Court 2015 Mo○○○)】

○ Since the first instance court’s decision No. 10 is written “No. 3,” the following:

(Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu30501 Decided May 27, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu30501 Decided October 26, 2010, which the Plaintiff invoked, did not determine the same content as the Plaintiff claims, and the case differs from this case)

○ No. 6 of the first instance judgment

7) The Plaintiff also asserted to the effect that the National Tax Service imposed the individual consumption tax on only a place of business that satisfies a certain standard, taking into account the size of the entertainment place, etc., and that the Defendant’s imposition of the individual consumption tax is against the equity of taxation by imposing the individual consumption tax only on only a part of the red-man establishment, and thus, illegal. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the National Tax Service provided administrative guidance to impose the individual consumption tax only limited to the establishment of which the type and form of the business are reported to the extent that it does not meet the substance of the business, the issue of imposing the tax should vary depending on the result of the tax investigation. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserted in the same circumstance, the Plaintiff

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.