1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, with the exception of adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the issues specifically emphasized in the trial as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth sentence of the first instance judgment "1,151,39,000 won" in the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment is "1,515,39,000 won".

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "issuance") shall be issued "," and the "issuance shall be changed."

Part VII of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “(a) 7.39,400,000 won of the facts charged at issue 1 is as follows: (b) 7.60,000,000 won of the facts charged at issue 1 is as follows; and (c) 7.60,000,000 won of the facts charged at issue 2 is added as “the dispute 2 amount”;

Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first to 11 pages 3 shall be added as follows.

5) C deposited the Plaintiff’s account in total of KRW 760,00,000 from July 24, 2012 to September 26, 2012, and KRW 1,864,90,000,000 in total, from November 11, 2013 to November 20, 2013. The Plaintiff did not undergo procedures such as filing a revised return by adding the amount to the tax adjustment and filing a revised return.

6) A) On October 23, 2014, the Daejeon District Court rendered a guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the issues of C and each of the issues of C on October 23, 2014, and rendered a not guilty verdict on the receipt of false tax invoices by C.

B) On November 13, 2014, the Daejeon High Court (No. 2014No50, No. 2010, Nov. 13, 2014, the part exceeding rooftop afforestation works worth KRW 243 million among the re-subcontract subcontract in the instant case is only the appearance of which is formally concluded upon the request of W, who is an employee of J, and it is merely the fact that there is no substance corresponding to the contract, and thus it cannot be deemed that there exists a real transaction corresponding thereto is merely a form of collusion.