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 concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 2.

C. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the parts below “judgments” as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Determination 1) The main text of Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount in cases where the whole or part of the necessary matters to be entered under Article 16(1)1 through 4 (i.e., the registration number and name of the entrepreneur who supplies, (ii) the registration number of the person who receives the supply, (iii) the value of supply and value-added tax, and (iv) the date of preparation) are not entered or falsely entered in the tax invoice issued. Thus, if the actual supplier and the supplier are issued a different tax invoice, in principle, the input tax amount may not be deducted or refunded. Here, meaning that the entry in the tax invoice is different from the fact. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that Article 16(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the person to whom the goods actually belongs is liable as taxpayer.