The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 1, 2007 to January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated the entertainment tavern business with the trade name of “D” (former “E”) on the first floor of the building underground in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and with the trade name of “F” on the first floor of the same building from October 1, 2007 to June 27, 2013 (hereinafter “D”) as a business operator, respectively, in the name of “F” on the first floor of the same building from October 1, 2007 to June 27, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Dong”). B.

On February 28, 2013, the partnership relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the Dong enterprise of this case was terminated.

Around 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the ground that “the Defendant embezzled the settlement amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the remaining profits after deducting expenses from the revenues of the Dong enterprise of this case,” the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition on November 28, 2014 on the ground that the Defendant did not embezzled or refuse to return the property.

C. Upon the request of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office for the accusation of a tax offense, the tax authority conducted the tax offense investigation of the instant place of business from September 16, 2015 to October 27, 2015.

The tax authority clarified the underreporting of the sales of the instant place of business, files a complaint against the Defendant on suspicion of tax evasion, while notifying the head of the competent tax office of the relevant taxation data, and the head of the competent tax office notified such taxation data notified the Defendant of the rectification of the amount of tax increase. D.

The defendant was dissatisfied with the above correction disposition of tax increase and filed an administrative litigation through a request by the Tax Tribunal.

(Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap74191, Seoul High Court 2019Nu38979, Supreme Court 2019Du58506). The Defendant was convicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(Seoul Central District Court 2015Gohap852). e.

The plaintiff is against the defendant around 2017.