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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 170,225,380 for the first term portion of 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2011 and KRW 148,032,10 for the second term portion of 2010 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

This court's reasoning is as follows. This court's reasoning is that the defendant's judgment on the newly asserted part is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the newly asserted part by this court as follows.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Although the Defendant should have issued a tax invoice only for the portion of commission acquired by the Plaintiff as the substance of the instant transaction falls under the supply of goods on consignment or on behalf of others, it argues to the effect that the receipt of each purchase price and sales tax invoice based on the total transaction price is obviously different from the actual transaction price, and thus, it is lawful to impose an additional tax on it.

However, in full view of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited in this judgment, the Plaintiff participated in the transaction between the small and medium enterprise distribution center and the Ildi F&P upon receiving a proposal from the small and medium enterprise distribution center, which is a public institution established by the Small and Medium enterprise distribution center by investing 100% of the total amount of the evidence, and the reason for the proposal was explained that part of the sales center would replace the sales center with the excellent company in order to diversify the sales center from the position of the small and medium enterprise distribution center. The Plaintiff started the transaction after concluding each contract with the non-party 1 for the supply of the goods with the Ildi F&P, the supply contract with the non-party 1, the supply contract with the small and medium enterprise distribution center, and the supply contract with the non-party 2010, respectively. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered the order for payment or the supply contract with the above goods at the request of the Ildi F&P, and confirmed the payment of the sales invoice at the request of the non-party 1 to the small and medium enterprise distribution center.

Therefore, in full view of all the above circumstances or the terms of each contract, the plaintiff is deemed to have received goods from the small and medium enterprise distribution center and received the goods from the small and medium enterprise distribution center and received the goods from the small and medium enterprise distribution center under its own responsibility and accounting, and it is difficult to view it differently solely on the ground that the purchaser and the sales center were determined in advance, or that the goods were directly delivered without going through the plaintiff. Furthermore, there is no special evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff was presumed to have been the products traded by the non-party 1 as the processing transaction. Thus, the defendant's argument in a different purport is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges’ aid (Presiding Judge) Transfering of permanent equipment