1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an entrepreneur operating a restaurant from April 1, 2006 to the date. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 116,756,134 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) in total from Sungjin chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Majin chain”), and deducted the relevant input tax amount by each taxable period, and reported and paid the value-added tax from the first to the second half of 2010.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,93,920 for the first term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 2010, KRW 6,029,840 for the second term of 201, KRW 4,319,930 for the first term of 201, KRW 4,874,760 for the second term of 201, KRW 4,874,760 for the second term of 201, KRW 1,303,790 for the first term of 2012, and KRW 2,439,070 for the second term of 2012 for the second term of 2012.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was supplied with alcoholic beverages from Sungjin chain. However, the Plaintiff, who is an employee of Tae Jin Alcoholic Beverages Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tin Alcoholic Beverages”), was in charge of the supply of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the name of Tae Jin and Sung Jin chain for the supplied alcoholic beverages, and received the same reasons as the two companies believed.

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but is not a false tax invoice, and even if the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know it.

B. In addition to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: ① The tax invoice of this case issued by Sungjin chain to the Plaintiff stated the item as “non- alcoholic beverages” or “food miscellaneous products”, and otherwise, the Plaintiff.