2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion;

(b) the relevant legislation;

(c)a recognition;

D. Until determining whether the tax invoice of this case is false, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the tax invoice of this case is written as follows in Paragraph 2, and it is identical to the entries in Part II-V-V-8, 8-9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Part 5 of the second fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance “109,345,000 won in supply” has been written by having “109,345,000 won in supply on April 28, 2011 as of the date of preparation”.

B. In the fourth and third instances of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of "the conviction of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act" in the Busan District Court (2011Gohap718,718,839) and the appellate court (2012No73 of the Busan High Court) shall be determined as "the conviction of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc." and the judgment of the appellate court (2012No73 of the Busan High Court).

(c) the 4th instance judgment of the first instance court “.... judgment” part of the 17th judgment “........”

3. The portion that differs from the judgment of the first instance court, 2) The actual supplier of the relevant legal doctrine and the supplier on the tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff is responsible for the duty of good faith, and barring any special circumstance, the supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice did not know of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not responsible for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, and the person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that they were not negligent in not knowing the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were nominal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20