Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap53786 ( October 26, 2010)

Seocho 209west 1763 (Law No. 9.15, 2009)

Whether it falls under the name of the representative

Even if it is alleged that the workplace was transferred while operating the workplace, the actual operator of the workplace is presumed to be the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the imposition disposition of value-added tax of 4,593,350 won for the first term of January 2, 2009 against the plaintiff on 2004, value-added tax of 7,960,630 won for the second term of 2, 2004, value-added tax of 29,819,060 won for the second term of 2, 2005, value-added tax of 29,819,060 won for the second term of 205, and value-added tax of 832

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that KRW 161,701,50 is remitted to the SS account of the first instance court's third 3rd 19, and KRW 90,730,00 is remitted from the above account to the SS account, KRW 161,701,50 is deposited from the above account, and KRW 161,701,50 is the same as the part of the reasoning for the first instance court's judgment, except for the rejection of each statement of evidence Nos. 11,12 against facts recognized by the first instance court. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.