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, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4) Pursuant to paragraph 2 of this section, each Note shall be deleted. At the fifth bottom, the following shall be added: “B representative director D and vice-president D have made a statement to the following effect in the process of distribution of alcoholic beverages or the investigation of distribution tracking of alcoholic beverages against B by the Director of the Central Tax Office:

(B) The tax invoice issued by B to the Plaintiff from 2012 to 2014 is KRW 3,795,640,000, and the sales amount confirmed by B’s computer program (as to the Plaintiff) is KRW 5,801,408,00.

The latter is the amount of actual transaction with the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

On the other hand, the Plaintiff requested that “B shall deliver alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff and suspend part of the tax invoices to be delivered to the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff’s business operator number and amount by specifying the business operator number and amount.” Therefore, there are many overlapping business partners between the Plaintiff and B.

(B) Since the Plaintiff could not cease a tax invoice equivalent to the amount of alcoholic beverages actually traded to the transaction partner, the Plaintiff continued the Plaintiff’s tax invoice to the transaction partner, etc.

The reason is that the transaction details in B’s computer program that overlaps with the Plaintiff were not verified is that only the tax invoice was issued without actual sales.

2,065,767,00 won, which is the difference between the sales amount of the Plaintiff confirmed in the B’s computer program and the amount reported to the National Tax Service, is the amount of sales actually sold to the Plaintiff, but delivered to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s customer, etc. overlapping with the Plaintiff.

B did not have any special criteria when issuing a tax invoice to the Plaintiff’s customer, etc., and issued it according to the amount required by the Plaintiff.

Each of the above statements.