1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification or addition of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, in the following conduct of the 10th trial, "it is illegal to impose value-added tax on the sales of a restaurant on both joint operators of the joint operators of the joint operators of the business or the group of joint operators, even though the Plaintiff is the actual operator of the instant restaurant."

The testimony of the witness H, I, and K in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to “each testimony of the witness H, I, I, and I, and I, and the witness of the trial of the first instance and the witness of the trial of the court of first instance D,” respectively.

On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the following judgments shall be added to the following acts:

3. In addition, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 through 6, it is recognized that the plaintiff operated the restaurant of this case from early May 2007 to around August 201, 207 by F and F and G while operating the restaurant of this case. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant only committed a disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff according to the operation of the restaurant of this case. Rather, according to the whole purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence No. 13, according to Article 25 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax on F and G as to the same content as the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.