All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 16(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “the Act”) provides for “the business operator’s registration number and name or title to be supplied” as one of the necessary entry items in a tax invoice. Article 17(2)2 provides that the input tax amount may not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, where the whole or part of the necessary entry items in a tax invoice is entered differently from the fact. However, the input tax amount in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree is allowed to be deducted from the output tax amount. Accordingly, Article 60(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “Where part of the necessary entry items in a tax invoice is erroneous but it is permitted by deeming the relevant tax invoice or other necessary entry.”

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① (a) the representative director of the Plaintiffs: (b) borrowed the name of the Plaintiff from his relative, such as H, and completed the business registration; and (c) the Plaintiffs received the instant tax invoice from the instant tester during the period from February 2, 2008 to February 2, 2012; and (c) the “trade name” column of the said tax invoice recognized the fact that the name of the instant tester was stated in the name of the Plaintiff and the name of the nominal lender instead of the P, and the instant tax invoice stated differently from the fact.