1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, and evidence No. 4-1 and 4-2, and the purport of the whole arguments:

On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to purchase KRW 68 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) from the Defendant for the commercial building Nos. 201-1 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the Young-gu Kuung-gu, Young-si (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant KRW 6.8 million on June 27, 2015, and KRW 6.2 million on July 29, 2015, respectively.

C. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant commercial building as the receipt No. 147398 on August 3, 2015.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has leased the commercial building of this case and received profits therefrom, so business registration should be reported. Since the plaintiff sold the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff, a tax invoice shall be issued for 6.8 million won, which is equivalent to 10% of the sales price of the commercial building of this case, which is equivalent to 10% of the sales price of the commercial building of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 6.

3. On the premise that the Defendant is the person liable to pay the value-added tax under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount equivalent to the value-added tax against the Defendant, and thus, the person who supplies goods or services independently from the business entity liable to pay the value-added tax under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to the entrepreneur who continuously and repeatedly supplies goods or services by meeting the business form to the extent that the value-added tax can be created (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1053, May 11, 1993). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone continues to provide real estate to the extent that the Defendant may create the value-added tax.