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 judgment by the court in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. After filing a lawsuit, the Plaintiff added the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the other party (the Defendant) who requested revocation of the notification of change in the amount of income of this case at the first instance trial.

Since it is not allowed to add the parties after filing a lawsuit, this part of the claim is unlawful.

B. Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “In a revocation suit, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts, an administrative agency that has taken the disposition, etc., shall be the defendant, and Article 14(1) provides that “if the plaintiff has mistakenly designated the defendant, the court may, upon the plaintiff’s request, permit the correction of the defendant by its decision.”

The notice of change in the amount of income of this case is made by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and shall be the defendant.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the director of the Nammun District Tax Office only by the director of the Seoul District Tax Office, seeking revocation of the disposition of notice of change in the amount of income in this case as well as revocation of the relevant disposition, but the court of first instance applied for correction of the defendant who added the director of the Seoul District Tax Office to the part of revocation of the disposition of change in the amount of income in this case. This is legitimate in accordance with Article 14(1) of

Therefore, the above assertion by the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office is without merit.

3. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision on the merits are the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance stating the legitimacy of disposition 2.) except for the addition as follows.