1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part of revocation order shall be revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the resident tax to be imposed on the 10th 3th 10th tier judgment of the first instance court is identical to the corresponding part (2th 10 to 3th 15th tier), except that the resident tax to be imposed on the 11th tier "local income tax" is deemed as "resident tax, etc. to be "income tax to be imposed on the 11st tier judgment"; and (b) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2

The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning the legitimacy of a disposition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. 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

Facts of recognition

The establishment and operation C of the partnership, Bsan and each branch of the partnership, concluded a partnership contract with E, F, and opened the Cheongsan and Cheongsan store, the Gangnam store, and the new village store around March 2005, and changed the name dong store and the new forest store around March 2005.

From March 2005, the Plaintiff served as the head of the employment ledger who received monthly pay from the pre-sale store.

C On January 15, 2007, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance established G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) as a 100% equity right holder to provide management support, such as accounting and tax, fund management, marketing, pharmaceutical purchase, and employee pay management of Bsanbu and each branch office, and entrusted its representative director. He/she was in charge of financial affairs as the office office, and he/she was in charge of hospital management such as fund management and expenditure of each branch office, bank business, drug order, and employee pay management. G was entirely in charge of accounting and tax affairs of each branch office.

The F withdraws from the partnership relationship around February 2007, and C proposed a contribution to the plaintiff, H, and I who had a monthly intention.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, H, and I invested KRW 420 million, and entered into a new partnership agreement with C, E on March 2007 (hereinafter “instant partnership”). The instant partnership shares came to have 69%, E, 10%, H, and I held 7%, respectively.

C Cheongdol points, E is a pressure-free point, and the plaintiff.