1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was registered as the representative director of C by January 14, 201, and during that period, global income tax and local income tax were imposed on the Plaintiff.

However, the Defendant, the actual operator of the above company, did not pay the above taxes, and thus, did not pay the taxes.

Since the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay taxes imposed on the Plaintiff due to the lack of actual operation of the said company, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that both the actual operator of the said company and the taxpayer of the said taxes are the Defendant.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit for confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is in danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). With respect to the instant case, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment against the Defendant as the obligor for tax payment against the Defendant, the effect of the judgment does not extend to the tax authority, the third party

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation against the Defendant cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the taxpayer for taxation, and thus, there is no benefit in confirmation of the instant lawsuit.

If the actual representative of the above company is the defendant, the plaintiff asserts that the above taxation disposition was illegal and raised an administrative litigation, or if it is no longer possible to dispute on the ground that the time limit for filing the lawsuit was over, etc., the defendant actually operated the above company, and the defendant's property profit without any legal ground.