1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an entrepreneur operating a restaurant from June 25, 2010 to the present date. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 101,046,920 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from Sungjin chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sjin chain”) and deducted the relevant input tax amount by each taxable period, and filed a return and payment of value-added tax from the second to the second period of 2010.

B. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 6,037,350 for the second period of value-added tax, KRW 4,438,310 for the first period of 2010, KRW 4,438,310 for the second period of 201, KRW 4,974,050 for the second period of 201, KRW 1,253,070 for the first period of 2012, and KRW 2,493,290 for the second period of 2012 for the second period of 2012.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was supplied with alcoholic beverages from July 2010 to September 2012.

However, Dae-gu, Inc., an employee of Dae-gu, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Tin-do") was in charge of the supply of alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff, and issued tax invoices in the name of Dae-Jin and Sung-Jin chain to issue them for the alcoholic beverages supplied at the time, and received them as believed by the two companies as the same company.

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but is not a false tax invoice, and even if the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know it.

B. In addition to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 5 through 8 of the judgment, the following items are stated as follows: ① In the instant tax invoice (2011 and 2012 minutes) issued by the Sungjin chain to the Plaintiff, the product is “non- alcoholic beverages” or “food miscellaneous goods.”