1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the defendant added a ground for preliminary disposition to the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the substance of the instant transaction falls under the supply of goods by commission agent or agent, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice only on the portion of 4.5% of the commission it acquired, the Plaintiff received each purchase and sales tax invoice based on the total amount of the transaction price, different from the substance of the transaction he/she knew.

This constitutes the receipt of tax invoices that are clearly different from facts, and thus, it is legitimate to impose additional tax even in consideration of such reasons.

B. In light of the above, since the subject matter of a taxation disposition is objective existence of legitimate tax amount, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the pertinent disposition, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition, even though during the lawsuit, until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. It does not necessarily mean that only the data at the time of the disposition should be determined whether the disposition is legitimate, or that only the original reason for the disposition can be asserted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 1997; 200Du4873, Aug. 24, 2001). The addition of the aforementioned ancillary reason cannot be deemed unlawful.

However, the following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment, are as follows: ① The plaintiff is the small and medium enterprise distribution center as a proposal to G, which was known to the employees of the small and medium enterprise distribution center,