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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on January 14, 201 against the Plaintiff of KRW 118,329,250 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2001, and value-added tax on the second term portion of value-added tax in 2001 is revoked.

[Plaintiff’s claim stated “73,491,00 won” as “73,491,00 won,” but it appears to be a clerical error in the “73,491,130 won”

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in the second instance judgment. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

In Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, "A comprehensive construction" in Part 6 of the judgment of the second instance (hereinafter referred to as "a company outside the country") shall be added.

In the case of the first instance court's decision, the "sales tax amount" in the 7th sentence 18th sentence shall be dismissed as "purchase tax amount", and the "Submission" in the 20th sentence of the same section shall be dismissed as "expenses".

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judicial Enforcement Decree of Judges (Presiding Judge)