1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. 2) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except for adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows. Thus, the part adding the judgment on February 2, 201 pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited. The Plaintiff’s business of supplying the instant service is prior to the amendment by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 269, Feb. 28, 2012

(2) Article 25-2(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “A business that is similar to a residential building supply business is impossible or substantially difficult to issue a tax invoice” under subparagraph 3 of the same Article. Therefore, the Plaintiff may issue a receipt instead of the tax invoice to the purchaser of the instant service, and thus, the Plaintiff’s additional tax on the ground of the nonperformance of the issuance of the tax invoice among the instant disposition is unlawful.” Article 25-2(10) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “other business similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9, for which the issuance of the tax invoice is impossible or substantially difficult,” and Article 25-2(2)10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “A business that is similar to those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 9, which is similar to the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

However, Article 53(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “if a person who receives goods or services is not an entrepreneur, a tax invoice may be issued by stating the name, address, and resident registration number of the purchaser,” and the Plaintiff appears to have known the address, name, and resident registration number of the buyer within the short period.