1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, with Nonparty B as a joint business proprietor, is running the business up to the present day of the business registration (for example, performance hall operating business, food, and miscellaneous business on October 28, 201) under the trade name, which is approximately KRW 643.8 square meters from among approximately the 1st underground floor and the 757.7 square meters of the middle floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On the other hand, on October 19, 201, the Plaintiff reported the type of business of the instant workplace to “food entertainment business” and the form of business as “general restaurant” to the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

C. The Seoul Regional Tax Office, from January 10, 2013 to February 18, 2013, conducted an integrated investigation into personal taxes on the Plaintiff, the representative of the instant workplace, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data to the effect that the instant workplace constitutes a taxable entertainment place stipulated in the Individual Consumption Tax Act, and thus, the individual consumption tax should be imposed on the instant workplace. Upon such notification, the Defendant, on April 12, 2013, determined and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 142,913,180 (including additional tax) of individual consumption tax and education tax on the portion of November 12, 2011 to December 12, 2012 as indicated in the separate sheet (including additional tax).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 9, 2014, but dismissed on January 8, 2015 (the written decision of dismissal appears to have been served on the Plaintiff on or after January 15, 2015, and the Defendant did not dispute this point), and thereafter, filed the instant lawsuit on April 10, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 17, 18, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant workplace did not prepare and sell food, and (2) the instant workplace performance.