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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the fourth written judgment of the first instance, i.e., the first written judgment.

(A) In the case of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the number of taxable periods in which the Defendant should consider when calculating the value-added tax to be recovered from the Plaintiff is “18,” and thus, the Defendant’s deeming it as “0” is unlawful. However, according to Article 66(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the depreciation property including the number of taxable periods in progress should be “goods provided for the taxation business.” The instant officetels, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, did not have been provided for the instant business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit, adding the following contents to “after

Although the return of the value-added tax at the time of the return of the second value-added tax in 2004 should be filed without delay with the report of the closure of the business, the following items shall be added to the fifth 7th of the first judgment

▣ 부가가치세법 시행령 제28조(구체적인 거래 형태에 따른 재화의 공급시기) ④ 법 제10조에 따라 재화의 공급으로 보는 경우에는 다음 표의 구분에 따른 때를 재화의 공급시기로 본다.

Time of Supply for the Gu

4. Where goods are deemed supplied pursuant to Article 10 (6) of the Act, the cessation date under Article 7;

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.