1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the first instance judgment, the following is added to the “Class 1(2)” of the first instance judgment, “as seen earlier, 8.1: (3) around April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff explained that the instant business was directly managed by the Plaintiff without an employee, but the instant business was also employed by a part-time manager, and the Plaintiff’s profits accrued therefrom were only the amount of the employee’s allowance. However, even if the Plaintiff had employed a part-time manager in the instant business, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have maintained the employment of the part-time manager, the period of employment, working hours, specific methods of settlement, and benefits, etc., of the first instance judgment. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have operated the instant business solely based on such circumstance, but it cannot be said that the Plaintiff did not have any basic nature of the Plaintiff’s tax agent’s business, including the Plaintiff’s first instance judgment, even if the Plaintiff was employed by the part-time manager.”