Whether a business operator registered as a joint businessman is a nominal person;

Although a joint-registered business operator asserts that he/she is the nominal holder, he/she is registered as a joint-registered business operator, and there is no evidence to prove that he/she actually operated the real business operator, and it shall not be

Article 2 (Registration under Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act)

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the special consumption tax of June 1, 2002 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), 4,038,680 won (including additional tax), 949,310 won for education tax of June 1, 2002, 13,361,09 won for special consumption tax of December 2002, 202, 3,592, 3,890 won for education tax of 3,590 won for education tax of 3,592, 3,890 won for education tax of 25,973,430 won for June 1, 203, 200, 204, 3.4,578,580 won for value-added tax of 1, 2002, 16,196, 200 won for value-added tax of 2 years, 2003, 361.6

The reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: "A evidence No. 8,20" in Part 5 of Part 4 of Part 5 of the first instance court's decision, and "A. 26" shall be added to "A. 6" and "A. 22-3" in Part 8 of the same part 8 shall be added to "A. 28, 30, 31" and "A. 1, 2" shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance court except for deletion of "A. 17-1, 2" in Part 10 of the same part 8 of the first instance court's decision, and it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance shall be justified, and the conclusion of the judgment is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiffs.