1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On April 11, 2016, the text of the judgment of the first instance, No. 3, 13, “No. 13, 2016,” and “No. 10, the following is added as follows: (1) A business operator who actually operates the business of attracting subscribers to the Internet, TV, radio, telephone, etc.; and (2) even based on the result of the Defendant’s criminal investigation (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (No. 2), the Plaintiff’s 30,000,000 won or more out of the second period of 2014, and all of the 8 companies, other than the purchase price of this case, were identified as a normal business operator.

As such, since the Plaintiff’s ordinary purchase transaction is proved to be normal transaction, it is necessary to clarify the objective circumstance that is distinct from other normal purchase transaction in order to determine the transaction with the purchaser of this case as a false transaction different from ordinary purchase transaction.

However, it is difficult to find objective circumstances to recognize the transaction with the purchaser of the instant case, except the aforementioned materials, with respect to the fact that the transaction with the purchaser of the instant case is false.

The following is added to the last 10th sentence of the first instance judgment (the Defendant asserted that E reversed the statement at the time of the tax investigation by concerns over the risk of criminal punishment due to the purchase tax invoice in this case. However, E reversed the statement of the purchase tax invoice in this case out of the sales amount recognized as a processing transaction at the time of the tax investigation despite having the burden of additional payment of value-added tax in the event that the purchase tax invoice in this case is deemed true, E reversed the statement of the purchase tax invoice in this case, which was recognized as a processing transaction at the time of the tax investigation. Therefore, it is difficult to dismiss the credibility of the reversed statement).