1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person who served as a transport employee at a gender limited company, who is a general taxi transport business entity.

According to Article 106-7 (1) and (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, a general taxi transport business entity is subject to the reduction of 95/100 of the amount of value-added tax paid, and the amount equivalent to 90/100 of the amount of value-added tax paid shall be paid in cash to transport employees. The defendant has a duty to supervise and supervise whether the amount of value-added tax reduced is properly paid to general taxi transport business entities and transport employees

However, since the defendant neglected the above duty by intention or negligence and caused property damage to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage.

2. In light of the judgment, even though the defendant has a duty to supervise and supervise whether the amount of value-added tax reduced pursuant to Article 106-7(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction is properly paid to general taxi transport business operators and trucking drivers, there is no evidence to support that the defendant neglected this intentionally or by negligence and thereby caused property damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.