All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. As to the first, second, and third points, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant tax invoice, which the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the manufacture, sale, etc. of non-ferrous metal, was a supplier D, which was delivered during the second and the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 and 2010, constitutes a “unlawful tax invoice” written differently between the supplier and the actual supplier on the relevant tax invoice.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax invoice different from the facts or the substance over form principle

B. If the supplier and the actual supplier on the tax invoice are different with regard to the fourth point, the supplier may not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount under the tax invoice, unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact.

In addition, the fact that there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the supply due to the failure to know the fact that he was the nominal owner, must be attested by the party asserting

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff was unable to be deemed to have been negligent in not knowing, or not knowing, the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the Plaintiff

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it is so alleged in the grounds of appeal.