The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion that a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, this part of the ground of appeal is that the lower court’s judgment is unlawful, since the lower court made an erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence and determined based on it, although the tax invoice issued by D (E) and K, etc. among each of the tax invoices of this case was a tax invoice issued by suppliers

However, such allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s decision in light of the records, there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is not a party to a transaction of the fiduciary duty negligence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the remaining tax invoices of this case except for those issued in the name of D (E) and K, etc. among the respective tax invoices of this case fall under cases where both the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different, but in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the name of the supplier of the remaining tax invoices of this case was different from that of the actual supplier, and was negligent in not knowing such fact.

In light of relevant provisions, legal principles, and records, the fact-finding and judgment by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence is limited.