1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been modified to reduce or exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. Article 3 and Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act only stipulate a lawsuit seeking the confirmation that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, and does not stipulate a performance of obligation lawsuit that requires an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency. Thus, a performance of obligation lawsuit demanding an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not allowed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14018 delivered on March 10, 1995, etc.). However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant to impose an administrative fine on the Defendant by omitting more than 100,000 won per transaction, is a performance suit demanding an administrative agency to take a certain disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful under the current Administrative Litigation Act.

B. The reasoning for the court to state this part of the claim for the cancellation of a fine for negligence is as stated in the third to fourth to fourth is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The instant lawsuit is dismissed in entirety as unlawful.

The judgment of the court of first instance, including any claim for a change in reduction or exchange at the trial, shall be changed as above.

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance was invalidated on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal seeking the imposition of 2% penalty tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice against the Plaintiff was withdrawn due to a change in the exchange of litigation at the trial.