1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The second period of June 13, 2012 that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2012.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

(1) Part II, Chapter 14, "B" is changed to "B."

(2) Part 3, Class 8, "A 6" shall be presumed to be "A 3 and 6."

3. Part 4, Paragraph 13, "the grounds for the disposition of this case" shall be "the grounds for the disposition of this case".

(4) Grades 4, 19 through 5, and 7, shall be improved as follows:

B. As to the disposition 2 of this case, Article 1 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods" is subject to value-added tax, and Article 6 (1) provides that the supply of goods shall be the delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.

"" is defined as ".

In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-level transaction tax, “delivery or transfer” under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of rights to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of profits actually earned, but whether a specific transaction is a nominal transaction with no actual delivery or transfer of goods or not shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose, process and mode of the transaction, the subject to whom the profit is attributed, the process of movement of goods, the payment of the price, etc., for each transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8263 Decided November 15, 2012, etc.). (2) In fact, the Plaintiff’s representative director (“I”) requested the Plaintiff to purchase scrap metal arising from K in the course of the tax investigation (i) around 2006 because the Plaintiff’s representative director is inside and outside of the L, which is the owner of the K group, in the course of the tax investigation, and (ii) around 2006, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to purchase scrap metal arising from K.