2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

This judgment is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal or deletion of the following:

○ 6, 15 to 7, 3, as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the portion of the instant tax invoice issued and delivered by the Plaintiff to anyone other thanCC is also supplied by other person thanCC as a supplier and it constitutes a “tax invoice with different contents” and the evidence and circumstance cited by the Plaintiff is insufficient to reverse it solely based on the evidence and circumstance cited by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① On February 25, 2009,CC appears to have no particular experience in automobile-related business, its representative ParkD is deemed to have no ability to operate a business supplying used cars. Furthermore, there is no evidence to find thatCC was equipped with facilities that can be deemed to have actually operated at the place of business (port or Daegu) recorded on its business registration certificate, and there is no special reason to find that it was able to conduct a transaction with the Plaintiff, a place of business.

②CC supplied most of the automobiles (96%) purchased from individuals and business operators (E) in the first half of 2009 to the Plaintiff, but did not make any transaction with the Plaintiff at all since the first half of 2009. This fact is significantly exceptional. Some of the individuals and EE representatives HH decided that the above purchase transaction was a processing transaction. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the tax invoice issued and issued byCC is not a false tax invoice solely on the grounds that there is no big difference between the sales tax base during the first half of 2009 VAT taxable period and the purchase tax base.

③ Considering the fact that the details of financial transactions between theCC, F, and the Plaintiff are similar alternatively (as long as the price is paid from the Plaintiff, an amount equivalent thereto is transferred to the Plaintiff’s account again), that part of those who sold automobiles to theCC and those who sold automobiles to FF overlaps with those who sold automobiles to F, and that some of those who sold automobiles to F are engaged in processing transactions, and that Park GG (GGF stated that ParkF was in charge of all transactions between F and the Plaintiff) and ParkD, which were involved in the transaction between F and the Plaintiff, are deemed to be a type-related person, it is difficult to view the transaction differently betweenCC and F and the Plaintiff.

○ 7 pages 18, F, as “CC and F”.

○ 8 4 to 19 parallels are as follows.

“BC and F are companies that started business on February 25, 2009 and July 19, 2010, immediately before the transaction with the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, ParkD, KimF, Kim Jong-soo, etc. have no experience in automobile-related business. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to properly investigate the personal information of the above-related persons and the capacity to supply goods, etc., and did not specifically state the details and process of the transaction with theCC and F, and did not state any specific statement about the details and process of the transaction with the said persons (the door leap is made according to the supply proposal, but it is difficult to accept to readily accept that the transaction was made in a short period of time betweenCC and F in a situation where there was no particular trust relationship prior to the transaction with the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that it was deceiving from the CCTV and F, but there is no evidence to deem otherwise.

(3) The business registration certificate is delivered to the head of competent tax office by requiring the business operator to apply for registration to the head of competent tax office in order to identify the person liable for the payment of value-added tax, etc. and to secure taxation data, and does not recognize that the business operator is merely a certificate proving the registration of a business fact and meets the qualification or requirements to operate his/her business accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff obtained the business registration certificate fromCC and F and confirmed it, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff fulfilled his

4. The data submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a motor vehicle transfer certificate prepared betweenCC and F, and it does not include the date and items of delivery of the motor vehicle fromCC and F, the name of the driver (person carrying the relevant motor vehicle) or mobile phone number, or the acquisition site.

○ 9. 10 to 15.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.