All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff invested a total of KRW 500,000,00 in the process of the new construction and operation of the C Hospital located in the budget group B of Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant hospital”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the head of the instant hospital D on September 16, 2006 for the operation of the restaurant, respectively, and entered into a contract for the entrusted operation of the restaurant on August 21, 2009.

The director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, through the tax investigation of the instant hospital around August 201, determined that the Plaintiff is the actual business owner who actually operated the instant restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) for the period from February 2007 to August 2010, the principal agent operating the instant restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) was not the hospital, but the Plaintiff was the actual business owner, and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation.

Accordingly, on April 6, 2012, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff for the first term of 2007, KRW 24,106,930 for the second term of 2007, KRW 38,446,210 for the second term of 207, KRW 37,858,300 for the second term of 2008, KRW 38,953,070 for the second term of 2008, KRW 39,082,550 for the first term of 209, KRW 37,928,928,90 for the second term of 209, KRW 41,610 for the second term of 2010, KRW 16,54,10 for the second term of 2010 for the second term of 209, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 16, 2012, but was dismissed on August 17, 2012.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-8, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff’s hospital asserted whether the disposition of this case was unlawful, directly employed the employees of the restaurant of this case at the plaintiff’s hospital, and the employees are under the control of the administration of the hospital, and the employees’ benefits and insurance money were paid from

In addition, material cost of the instant restaurant was paid at the hospital, etc. The instant restaurant was operated by the hospital. The Plaintiff invested the new construction cost of the hospital and made the investment in the form of lease deposit, and the Plaintiff did not actually operate the instant restaurant in its independent position.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is therefore.