1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 5,262,420, which was assessed against the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the tax invoice issued by D, etc. is not a different tax invoice from the fact, since the Plaintiff actually purchased waste, etc. from D and F and remitted the price to D and F accounts. Even if it is true, in light of the transaction circumstances, the Plaintiff’s failure to know such fact at the time of the transaction, and was not negligent in not knowing such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The main text of Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount in cases where a part of the necessary matters to be entered under Article 16(1)1 through 4 (i.e., the registration number and name of the entrepreneur who supplies, (ii) the registration number of the person who receives the supply, (iii) the supply price and value-added tax, and (iv) the date of preparation) are not entered or falsely entered in the tax invoice issued. Thus, in cases where the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice receive a different tax invoice, in principle, the input tax amount may not be deducted or refunded, but if there are special circumstances, such as the entrepreneur’s failure to know the nominal name and failure to know it, the relevant input tax amount can be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul.