1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additions to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following details are added to “I” following the last 9th sentence of the first instance judgment [the three main written request for transportation of scrap metal issued to the Plaintiff around April 2013, which is the initial stage of transaction with A, are written as “I” instead of “I” (No. 3-1 of the evidence] on the 10th sentence of the first instance judgment, following the following details were added to “I.C.......”

(A) On the 10th of the first instance judgment, the following contents were added to the second instance judgment. ⑤ The Plaintiff suspended the transaction with A from March 2014 and started the transaction with B.

However, the representative H made a statement to the effect that he was under investigation on the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and that “B was actually operated only when he lent resident registration certificates, saves, etc. for business registration upon the request of the representative D, and opened a business account and issued an OTP card.”

(No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 5). In light of this, the plaintiff seems to have known that he/she continued the transaction by changing his/her name to B while making a transaction under the name of No. 4.

6. The Plaintiff’s sales are related to the returned steel (Evidence A2), and even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff does not have a separate scrap metal storage.