2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance changed the value-added tax of 000 won for the second period of 2009 as the value-added tax of 000 won for the second period of 2009.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 208 on November 5, 2010, and the imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first period of 2009 on February 8, 201 and 000 won for the second period of 209 on the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the claims filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's ruling is that "the court's decision is based on the second below 4th "00 won" and then the court's decision on the defendant's argument is added in the following paragraph, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."

A. Determination as to the assertion that the transaction between BB and B is a processing transaction

1) The defendant asserts that the transaction related to the tax invoice (Evidence A No. 30) issued by the court with BB company as the supplier cannot be deemed to have been supplied by the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not pay the price of supply as the supplier.

2) However, considering the household effects of No. 13. 30. 31 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the testimony of this court witnessCC by this court, the plaintiff, upon the recommendation of thisCC, made 6,790 km from BB company involved in fraud, and the plaintiff paid 000 won out of the regular price to BB company from thisCC, and the plaintiff, after checking BB company's business registration certificate, deposited 00 won in BB company account, and thereafter, deposited 00 won equivalent to the value-added tax, and the plaintiff paid 6,790 km with the above tax invoice. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was not supplied with 6,790 km. This part of the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept.

(b) Determination as to the assertion that good faith and without fault is not a good faith and without fault;

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that EE metal, etc. was a disguised business operator. However, considering the following circumstances in the first island, which can be known in light of the testimony of the witnessCC at this court, the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the wire metal, etc. was a disguised business operator. The defendant's assertion in this part is without merit.

① In 2008, the Plaintiff issued 283 purchase tax invoices to 51 purchasing places, and issued 385 purchase tax invoices to 64 purchasing places in 2009, and among them, the Plaintiff was a normal transaction partner except for EE metal (Evidence A 32 and 33, No. 6), and the Plaintiff was in need of trade with EM metal, a disguised business operator, while engaging in the manufacturing business of non-metallic metals. Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have traded with EM, a disguised business operator, in the process of normally trying to see the necessary circumstances while engaging in the manufacturing business of non-metallic metals (in the case of the Dong resources case submitted as 1 as reference material to the preparatory document as of February 15, 2012, the purchase amount through BB of the pertinent business entity is different from the instant case by reaching approximately 95% of the total purchase amount).

② The Plaintiff confirmed the business registration with the business registration certificate from EM, etc., and thereafter confirmed the name of the business entity and the name of the business entity stated in the tax invoice are the same as the business account. The upper limit price purchased from EM metal, etc. cannot be deemed to have reached the market price compared to the market price at that time (the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of this court witness CC testimony, and the whole purport of pleadings) is relatively small from 000 won to 000 won, and it seems unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to pay more attention than the above duty of care in light of transaction practices, etc.

③ When trading with EM, the Plaintiff entered the name and cell phone number, vehicle number, and weight of individual cargo in the measurement certificate, etc. (No. 2, No. 6), and when trading with BB companies, entered the purport that the Plaintiff’s name and cell phone number in the measurement statement is between BB companies - mutual special metal, vehicle number, and upper FM metal in the future, and entered the name and cell phone number (No. 14 and No. 26 of A), and when trading with OB metal, the husband of 200, who is the representative of the OF, entered the name and number of O in the name and number of the actual representative in the name of O and the number of the number of persons in the transaction (Evidence No. 22 of A) in a relatively detailed manner in order to verify whether the transaction contents of the instant goods are consistent with the details of the tax invoice (the Defendant entered in the front of the individual cargo article in the process of investigation, and sent the phone number and number of the latter to the 200.

④ When the Plaintiff traded the instant goods, the Plaintiff transferred the value-added tax amount only when it confirmed that there was no special transaction problem by checking the business registration certificate, etc. in consideration of the first transaction with EM metal, etc.

⑤ The Defendant did not regard the tax invoice traded with BB company as a false tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the defendant are dismissed. However, since the "value-added tax 000 won for the second term portion of the judgment of the court of first instance" for the second term of 2009 is erroneous, it is corrected to "00 won for value-added tax 00 won for the second term of 2009";