1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized.

Items - Electronic tax invoices of December 31, 2015 - Item - Electronic tax invoices of 30,000,000 won in total as of February 15, 2016 - Item C is indicated as “A” in the remarks column of 1,069,440 won in a drainage channel, total amount, 1,069,440 won in a remarks column, as of December 31, 2015, and February 15, 2016, as the Plaintiff, each of the following electronic tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”).

- The name of Cheongyang Branch A - The name of Cheongyang Branch A : 1500*100, volume: 124 copies, unit price of 250,560 won: 31,069,440 won - On February 15, 2016, C issued the following transaction specifications (hereinafter referred to as “the transaction specifications of this case”) to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2016.

C) On February 15, 2016, C’s production date list, stating that the size was released 1500*100 waterways 116 copies. The current status of release at the bottom of the production date is stated as “In order to: Chungcheong: Chungcheong; area A; area A; area name: 1500A; quantity: 116; and carrier: 2/11; 2/11) in an appeal suit, the burden of proving the legality of the relevant disposition is, in principle, at the disposal agency claiming the legality of the relevant disposition. However, if there is proof to the extent reasonably acceptable on the legality of the relevant disposition claimed by the disposal agency, the disposition is justifiable; claims and proof of exceptional circumstances are returned to the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27639, Jun. 18, 2012; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du1647, Apr. 17, 2017).