beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
From the fifth side of the judgment of the court of first instance, it can be recognized that the business registration of the company selling computer peripherals P was made in the name of the plaintiff in the name of "6" at the last 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was "the court of first instance" to "the court of first instance", and "the last 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance," and "the 12 to 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance added "the 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance", but this was made by the request of R, the representative director of the company of the above company, in order to receive the smuggling wages from Q Q Co., Ltd. working for the plaintiff. Thus, even before the case was registered in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have actually operated the business of this case.
In light of the fact that there is a frequent or frequent business trip, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff actually engaged in the instant business in light of the fact that the contact point for the purchase of goods is indicated with the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number.
Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 23 and 24, and the overall purport of the argument as to the fact-finding on the seal-frequency corporation of this court, Eul's phone number posted on the product information website of the twitk from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201 in order to respond to inquiries such as purchase, refund, etc. raised by its customers, the phone number posted on the product information website of the twitk is different from the plaintiff's mobile phone number (S) recorded on the twitk, and the I actually operated the business of this case on the website for the registration of online sales.