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 court's explanation about this case is "3. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment" of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s portion of “the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault on a false tax invoice (from 8 pages 7 to 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Rule] (No. 8 side 7 side 7 to 13 side 7 side 8 side 7 side 8 side 7 side 13 side

C. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence as to a false tax invoice 1) The actual supplier and the supplier listed in the tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount is not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002) shall prove that the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

A. The Plaintiff traded scrap metal in the amount of KRW 3,877,570,840 of the supply value with the transaction partner in this case for about one year, and the status of the business place confirmed by the size of the facilities and photographs of the transaction partner in this case.