1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed the name of the business operator to “C” he/she operated, the Plaintiff was responsible for all debts and taxes and public charges, and the Plaintiff was to employ the Plaintiff as an employee of “C,” and the Plaintiff lent the business registration name to B from December 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008, and retired after being employed as an employee of “C.”

B. The Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff, who is the nominal owner of C’s business registration, but the value-added tax was unpaid due to the failure of B to pay value-added tax.

C. On April 25, 2008, the Defendant followed the procedures for seizure and public sale of D forest land 23,207 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun.

The forest land was sold on March 19, 2009, and the defendant was allocated KRW 69,207,630 in total, the sum of KRW 2,731,470 in April 16, 2009, and value-added tax in arrears, 66,476,160 in total.

E. Since it is obvious that the actual business owner of C is B, the disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff on the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff is the actual business owner is null and void. Therefore, on the premise that the disposition imposing value-added tax is valid, the defendant's disposition of selling the above forest by public sale and receiving 69,207,630 won from the above money without any legal ground. Therefore, the defendant

2. In addition to the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5 (including provisional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including provisional numbers), the business name was registered in the plaintiff's name as to the business for which "C", "construction/manufacture", and "construction/building material processing" are "construction/building material processing" (hereinafter "the business of this case") with respect to the business for which the business of this case was conducted as "building material construction/building material processing" (hereinafter "the business of this case"). The director of the tax office notified the plaintiff of the payment of value-added tax for the business of this case for the above period, although he notified the plaintiff of the payment of value-added tax for the business of this case.