1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reason why the court has used this part of the disposition is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The reason why the court used this part of the plaintiff's assertion as to this part is 2.0 billion won of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following contents after the fourth 3rd son of the judgment of first instance.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this is cited as it is.

3) Inasmuch as the instant provision is valid, each of the instant dispositions, which took place by deeming that the packaging of the instant piece of land, etc. constitutes “supply by packaging in an independent transaction unit for the purpose of sale,” which is exempt from tax exemption, goes against the consistent authoritative interpretation of the tax authority, which states that “the supply of foodstuffs under Article 34(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, such as kind of goods and clothing, to a business operator who is not the end consumer, is exempt from value-added tax,” and is unlawful against the principle

A person shall be appointed.

B. Attached Form 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance of the relevant statutes is as shown.

C. 1) With respect to the assertion that this part of the claim is not subject to exemption from tax as stipulated in the instant provision, the reasons why the court used this part are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 3 and 2.

C. 1) Since the provision of this case is identical to the statement in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) With respect to the assertion that the provision of this case is null and void beyond the scope of delegation of higher provisions, the reason why this court uses this part as to this part, and the reason why the

C. Article 8(2) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is the same as the entry in paragraph 2.