1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows 2. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part of the judgment of March 200), and such part is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. A business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “value-Added Tax Act”) shall add the following on four below the 6th day below the 4th day to the revised 20th day below Article 10(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act:

A) In supplying goods, value-added tax is imposed on the transaction partner (Article 15 of the former Value-Added Tax Act) when the transaction partner collects value-added tax (Article 15 of the former Value-Added Tax Act), and the transaction partner pays the difference between the amount of tax collected (sales tax) and the amount of value-added tax collected when the transaction partner receives the goods, etc. (hereinafter “pre-stage tax deduction method”). As Korea’s value-added tax adopting the pre-stage tax deduction scheme has the form of transaction tax imposed on the external appearance of the transaction, not substantial income, unlike income and income tax, and thus, it does not constitute a concept of tax deduction, and it is imposed regardless of business operator’s profit or loss (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2009Hun-Ba11, Feb. 24, 2011). Accordingly, in principle, whether a taxpayer is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act should be determined based on the transactional transaction, not based on the profit or expense accrued in the transaction, but on the supply of goods or services (see, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Du284.