2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

On April 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of the second value-added tax ○○○○○○○○○ (including additional taxes), the first value-added tax 2010, the second value-added tax 2010, the second value-added tax 2010, the first value-added tax ○○○○○ (including additional taxes), the first value-added tax 201, the first value-added tax 2009, the global income tax 2009, the global income tax ○○○○○ (including additional taxes), the global income tax 2010, and the global income tax ○○○○ (including global taxes) for the year 2011.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

In the judgment of the court of first instance, cancellation of the part against the plaintiff, which orders cancellation by:

C. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW ○○○○○○○○○○ (including additional taxes); (b) the first value-added tax (including additional taxes); (c) the second value-added tax (including additional taxes); (d) the second value-added tax (including additional taxes); (c) the first value-added tax (including additional taxes); (d) the first value-added tax (including additional taxes); (e) the first value-added tax (including additional taxes); (c) the global income tax for 2009; and (d) the global income tax for 2010; and (e) the imposition of the global income tax for 2010.

B. Defendant

In the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant, the part of the judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim

The dismissal is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the entry of Gap evidence No. 47 (including each number) and Eul evidence No. 47 (including each number), which lack to admit the defendant’s assertion, are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff’s assertion as evidence to be additionally submitted in the trial; (b) the entry of No. 47 and No. 6 (including each number); and (c) the dismissal or addition of part of the first instance judgment; and (c) the entry of the reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same as the entry of the part of the first instance judgment, except for addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff and the defendant stressed again in the trial; and (c) thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ “B” in the last sentence of section 5 shall be deemed to be “BB of a stock company,” and “B” in section 6(7) shall be deemed to be “Account”;

Ro. On the other hand, the letter of credit set forth in the 15th letter of credit set forth in the 15th letter of credit set forth above, "CC Development" set forth in the 7th chapter 10 as "CC industry", and the 9th section set forth in the 6th section set forth above as "○○○○○○."

○ On the 8th page, the following shall be added to the 6th following:

No. 55-20 won per liter is low compared to the purchase price of oil from the purchase place of this case. However, even if the Plaintiff was supplied with actual oil and deposited the price into the account under the name of the customer in this case, this is merely a tool to disguised normal transactions in so-called data transaction, and it is difficult to find that there was no negligence due to the failure to know the disguised facts of the tax invoice in this case. 6. The business registration certificate is delivered by the business operator to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and to secure taxation data, and it does not prove that the certificate of business registration is merely a certificate proving the simple business facts and is merely a certificate proving the registration of the business facts and satisfies the qualification or requirements to operate the business accordingly. 7. The Plaintiff stated that the purchase place of this case is due to the fact that 15-20 won per liter is added to the profit oil price of the wholesaler, etc. in case of purchasing oil through the intermediate wholesaler, etc. under the social norms.

3. Additional determination

A. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the purchase tax invoice received by MM from the FF Energy Co., Ltd. and BB is false, and that the portion supplied by MM to the Plaintiff from September 14, 2009 to December 31, 2010 cannot be deemed as a processing transaction. GG energy is a legal entity identified as data on the first period of 2010, and that the portion supplied by GG energy to the Plaintiff from September 2010 to December 201 of the same year cannot be deemed as a processing transaction. Therefore, the tax invoice received based on each of the above transactions cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

Pursuant to the statement No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, ○○ Tax Office 2010.

5.As a result of research on MM, processing of reporting of value-added tax for the second period of MM in 2009

Since it is recognized that the Plaintiff was confirmed as a transaction and confirmed as a material, it shall be deemed that the fact that the transaction entered in the tax invoice delivered from MM from September 14, 2009 to December 31, 200 of the same year was proved to be considerably different from the fact, and the Plaintiff did not submit as evidence the shipment slip to the Plaintiff, asserting that the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from MM, and the Plaintiff did not submit it as evidence, and only the statement of No. 23 No. 10 of the evidence No. 23 is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

In addition, according to the above facts as to the transactions listed in the tax invoice delivered from July 2010 to December 2012 of the same year from GG energy, GG energy is a corporation operating around April 29, 2010. According to the data on the first period of 2010, it was confirmed that the part of ○○○○○○, which was purchased from BB, was received a false tax invoice. The following circumstances are revealed: ① the Plaintiff did not submit a shipment slip on the portion of supply from September 2010; ② the Plaintiff did not submit a shipment slip on the portion of supply from October 10 to December 2012 of the same year; ③ its purchasing place is not verified; ③ the Plaintiff’s actual receipt of the tax invoice from 2010 to 201.2G energy is not a different taxpayer’s signature or seal, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes an omission in the tax invoice from 201 to 201.2G energy.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from a non-data company; and (b) the Plaintiff received only tax invoices from GG energy; and (c) the Defendant calculated the tax on the portion of oil supplied from July 9, 2010 to August 30 of the same year.

In addition, it argues that it constitutes a false tax invoice.

The statements of evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 24 are known by adding to the whole purport of the pleading.

The following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff, from July 9, 2010 to August 30, 201 of the same year, purchased from J Energy Co., Ltd. and possessed the shipment slips on the portion supplied to the Plaintiff, and entered the number and transporter of the vehicle transporting oil in the shipment slip, and remitted the oil amount corresponding to the oil amount to the account in the name of GG Energy. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff may be recognized to be supplied with oil listed in the shipment slip.

Therefore, in order to recognize that the tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from July 9, 2010 to August 30, 2010 of the same year constituted a false tax invoice, other companies must prove the fact that the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Plaintiff in relation to the tax invoice delivered from July 9, 2010 to August 30 of the same year that the Plaintiff was another company, not GG energy, and the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.