1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The first period of June 1, 201, 201, which the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added or used in addition to the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(including each of the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. Amendment 2. The following shall be added to the 8.9 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance:

3) The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)

The details of the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from the Intervenor, among the details of the tax invoice in the attached Form No. 1, constitutes an actual transaction where the Intervenor supplied the Plaintiff with the tax invoice and issued it.

8 'h below the 9th judgment of the first instance'.

2 The following grounds are as follows:

A. 3) The argument is added. Following the 11th page of the first instance judgment (2), “The Plaintiff’s tax invoices of this case except for the tax invoices issued by the Intervenor and the stock company AF during the above taxable period,” shall be added. From the 11th page of the first instance judgment to the 12th page of the 3th page “2010 to the 12th page.”

It can be recognized that the tax invoice of this case, except for the tax invoice issued by the intervenor and the corporation AF during the above taxable period, is false, and each description of Gap evidence Nos. 49, 139, and 140 (including the virtual number) is insufficient to reverse it.

3 Then, regarding the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from the Intervenor and the Company AF in the first taxable period of 2011, the Plaintiff failed to have a proper tool to measure weight and degree in the above taxable period. The Plaintiff’s representative B did not have any relevant business history. Therefore, each of the above tax invoices is doubtfully different from the facts or constitutes a false name or a false name.

However, Gap.