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 this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases of raising the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

The first instance court’s decision Nos. 10 and 12-13 of the 10th instance judgment stated that “The present final appeal is pending, but the Supreme Court dismissed the R’s final appeal on August 1, 2018.”

The first instance judgment of the first instance court stated that “The appeal is in progress at the present appellate court,” and on July 4, 2018, the appellate court revoked the first instance judgment and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the claim for the refund of value-added tax belongs to the person who is not the supplier (seller) and the person who is supplied (seller). The Plaintiff appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du51997), but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 15, 2018.”

In the first instance judgment, “The input tax amount stated in the relevant tax invoice is not deducted from the output tax amount for the second period of 2014 and the first period of 2015, and ② did not include the input tax amount stated in the relevant tax invoice in the necessary expenses for the business year of 2014 and 2015,” and “(i) did not deduct the input tax amount stated in the relevant tax invoice from the output tax amount for the second period of 2014 and the first period of 2015, and did not deduct it from the output tax for the second period of 2014 and the first period of 2015, and (ii) was corrected and notified as to the corporate tax amount attributed to the business year of 2014 and 2015 under Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1608, Dec. 24, 20

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.