1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant, around April 2014, agreed to operate an entertainment drinking club business and agreed not to operate the club business. However, the Defendant prepared a false business contract without the Plaintiff’s consent, and on June 2, 2014, registered the Plaintiff and the Defendant as a joint business proprietor, and practically operated the said business establishment.

However, the tax authority imposed value-added tax, global income tax, etc. on the Plaintiff under the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual operator. As such, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Plaintiff is the nominal representative of the said workplace and the Defendant is the actual operator of the said workplace on the premise that the Plaintiff is exempted from such disposition.

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, mere fact-finding does not have an interest in confirmation, and the lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when the plaintiff's right or legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to fundamentally resolve the dispute.

As to the above workplace, seeking the above confirmation is merely seeking simple factual verification, not falling under the specific rights or legal relations that are subject to the lawsuit of confirmation.

In addition, it cannot be deemed as the most effective and appropriate means for the dispute resolution of this case to seek such confirmation without seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation on the ground that the taxation disposition against the tax authority, which is merely a nominal representative, is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.