1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the parties' claims are examined in addition to the evidence submitted to this court in the court of first instance, it is acknowledged that the facts of first instance and the judgment are legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Form 2), except for the dismissal or addition of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part V, set aside or added, the following shall be added to the first page:

According to Articles 37 and 40 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the value-added tax amount to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by deducting the purchase tax amount from the sale tax amount, and where an entrepreneur concurrently operates a tax-free business and a tax-free business, the calculation of the purchase tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be based on the actual attribution, but common purchase tax amount which cannot be distinguished from the actual attribution due to the use in the tax-free business and the tax-

In this context, the criteria for determining "when common use for taxation business and tax-free business makes it impossible to distinguish the actual attribution from the time of purchase of goods as well as the time of common use of the goods for purchase." As such, it shall be determined whether the whole goods can be divided by considering the actual conditions of the purchase, management, manufacture, processing process, input of products, manufacturing process, and management of products, etc. of duty-free goods. It shall be deemed that the actual attribution is not possible even if the quantity of the goods can not be classified by distinguishing the quantity of the goods, as well as when the quantity of the goods used is not known even if the quantity of the goods can not be classified by distinguishing the quantity of the goods used (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu251, Jun. 9, 1987, etc.).