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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are identical to the allegations in the court of first instance. Thus, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and the evidence added in the court of first instance are closely compared with the evidence, it shall be deemed that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that the disposition of this case

Therefore, the reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgment as to the evidence submitted in the court of first instance with regard to the service of the tax invoice of this case or the supply of goods as evidence, and such judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The Plaintiff added at the trial, based on the evidence of the supply of the service on the tax invoice as of December 30, 2013, the supply value of KRW 40 million in the instant tax invoice, and submitted Gap evidence No. 11 (software development contract). However, the above contract merely contains the main text of the project name, the contract period, the contract amount, the delivery date, the compensation for delay, and the defect performance period, and there is no specific statement as to what is the contents of the software to be developed by the transaction party, the beneficiary, and the “general contract terms” attached to the contract contains any contents of the general contract unrelated to the contents of the said software development contract. It is insufficient to recognize that the above Gap evidence No. 11 merely stated in the above contract as to the content of the software development contract was actually made, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In addition, each fact-finding certificate submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 8-1, 9-1, 10-1 of the evidence No. 8-1, 9-1 of the evidence No. 8) shall be issued by accepting the tax invoice of this case from the Plaintiff’s former representative director, the spouse of the present representative director (E) and the