1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some of the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the entry in the column of reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 6 5: The following subparagraphs shall be added to "no evidence exists" at the end of the fifth place.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff appeared in the inquiry reply to the fact-finding regarding the Do governor of the first instance, the Cheongbuk-do Office issued a registration certificate to issue D with respect to the petroleum selling business of D, the public officials in charge visit the place of business and directly verify the oil reservoir, office, transportation equipment, etc. In light of D’s regularly reporting transactional records every month, the Cheongbuk-do Office also ruled D as a real petroleum supplier, if the Do Office deemed D as a real petroleum supplier, the Plaintiff merely one individual was negligent in determining D’s registration certificate issued by the Do governor and the transactional records of the Korea Cheongbuk-do Association as a real company.

Accordingly, as shown in the inquiry reply to the fact-finding regarding the Do governor of the first instance, even if the public officials in charge of the Chungcheongbuk-do Office have actually visited the D workplace, and the above public officials were identified as a petroleum supplier who actually exists D through the transactional situation records, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff constitutes negligence in the instant transaction.

First of all, the circumstance that the Chungcheongbuk-do Office confirmed the facilities of the D’s workplace and identified them as a genuine petroleum supplier is only the fact-finding after the instant lawsuit. The circumstance that the Plaintiff operated the gas station of this case and received the purchase tax invoice was the basis for determining the authenticity of the other party to the transaction at the time of receiving the purchase tax invoice.