beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in this court, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the additional evidence submitted in this court are reviewed together with
Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgment to the plaintiff's argument in this court, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in this court
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the purport that the instant disposition is unjust, since the sum of environmental management costs included in each of the instant contracts (i.e., KRW 252,661,00 (i.e., KRW 197,446, Jun. 29, 2016, KRW 55,215, and KRW 4) incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to each of the instant contracts falls short of KRW 350,00,00, which is the tax invoice issued as one issued by the Plaintiff, as the sum of the environmental management costs incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to each of the instant contracts.
In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the following circumstances, i.e., the structure of production and installation under each contract of this case, which are different contracts, are deemed to be different contracts. However, the plaintiff submitted double tax invoices to the defendant without any particular explanation as evidence on the payment of environmental management expenses under each contract of this case, which is a separate contract of this case, and the plaintiff did not submit a statement of usage of environmental management expenses or tax invoices that are actually paid according to the contract of this case, which is divided into each contract of this case.