The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, Article 31 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall be collected from the person who receives the supply of the goods or services, provided that the entrepreneur declares that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax should be collected from the person who receives the supply of the goods or services will ultimately be borne by the final consumer in sequence. Thus, there is no right

(2) In a case where an agreement between the parties to the transaction on the burden of value-added tax exists, the business entity may directly claim the person who receives the supply pursuant to the agreement to pay the value-added tax. The agreement on the burden of value-added tax is not necessarily required at the time of the supply of the goods or services, but is valid at the time of the supply of the goods or services, and it may be done in an implied form, not necessarily explicitly but implicitly.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da33984 delivered on November 12, 1999, etc.). In a case where there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a contract between the parties and thus the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the parties’ interpretation of the document should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005; 2006Da15816, Sept. 20, 2007). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff, between the Defendant and the Defendant, runs the scrap metal at B’s site.