The defendant, on December 17, 2014, set forth the first period against the plaintiff in 2009.

2. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate or not is based on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary part of the judgment of the court of first instance] Part 12, 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, " shall be deemed to constitute a processing transaction," and each description of Gap 6 to 20 evidence, Gap 22 to 32 evidence (including the number number) and testimony of the witness V of the court of first instance is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no counter-proof otherwise."

The 14th to 17th to 18th 2th 14th 14th 14th 2th 2th 200.

3) Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that in principle, the exclusion period of national taxes shall be five years (Article 3). However, the exclusion period of national taxes shall be ten years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed.

(1) Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that if a taxpayer receives a false tax invoice issued without a real transaction and receives a deduction or refund of an input tax amount, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years shall apply on the ground that such act constitutes “a case where a taxpayer evades national taxes or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means” as provided by Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes