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 stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal or addition. 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.

In addition to the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “after calculation. 5 May 15, 2014” is as follows: (a) the phrase “this court” under the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 7, 7, 3, 9, 11, 9, and 8, which adds all the phrase “this court” under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to “the court of first instance”; and (b) the phrase that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact under the Value-Added Tax Act, which adds all the phrase “the court of first instance” under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to “the court of first instance” under the third part.

Under the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff was inevitably engaged in removal services on the street because of the characteristics of removal services, etc., and prepared a service contract and a contract agreement only after the first day around June 2012. However, the plaintiff or C and the Disabled Scholarship Association did not submit documents to prove that the amount paid in advance to the street store. The plaintiff or C and the Disabled Scholarship Association transferred KRW 418 million to the plaintiff as the price for the instant fence rearrangement project, KRW 253 million as the price for the instant shopping district rearrangement project, and the plaintiff transferred each of the above amounts to KRW 640 million as the price for the instant shopping district rearrangement project, and the plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 231 million to the account of the representative director of the C and KRW 231 million as the account of the Disabled Scholarship Association, but according to each of the evidence Nos. 12 and 13, C and the Disabled Scholarship Association did not report each of the above amounts to 2012.