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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to purchase KRW 142,800,000 for the seven used vehicle transport equipment, such as the Plaintiff’s Poter, etc., and the Defendant agreed not to issue a tax invoice or value-added tax return regarding the said sale. However, the Defendant issued seven tax invoices with a total value of KRW 150,000,000, total value-added tax amount of KRW 15,000,000, total value-added tax, and KRW 15,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid value-added tax on July 24, 2013. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 15,00,000,000 and delay damages.

B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant entered into a sales contract with the plaintiff on March 30, 2013 to purchase seven high-speed vehicle transport equipment (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case"), and on April 30, 2013, remitted a total of KRW 142,800,000 to the account in the name of the plaintiff on April 30, 2013; the defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 150,000,000 (= KRW 2,00,000,000, KRW 50,000,000, KRW 25,000,000, KRW 32,500,000, KRW 1505,005,000, KRW 1505,005,000, KRW 205,005,000, KRW 705,005.

C. First of all, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, under the premise that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the fact that KRW 142,800,000, which was actually paid by the Defendant, was the value of supply under the Value-Added Tax Act, and that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant not to report value-added tax, the Plaintiff sustained losses

In this case, 142. Then, after the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff.