Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the alteration of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Since the above plaintiff's assertion cannot be deemed to have a causal relationship during the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to view that the above plaintiff's assertion is a causal relationship as follows. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows. The plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant Eul intentionally promised to again issue a tax invoice and thereby caused the plaintiff's new time to apply for purchase tax invoice," but pursuant to Article 34-2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 71-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, "the other party to the transaction shall issue a tax invoice by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of the supply of goods or services belongs [see Article 34 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act] under Article 34 of the Value-Added Tax Act, if the other party to the transaction does not issue a tax invoice at the latest, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's allegation that the period of application for issuance of the tax invoice was within 3 months from the expiration date of the taxable period of the judgment.
(a).
【Modification of the part of paragraph 1) as follows:
The claim for construction cost is one of the arguments.