1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The 5th parallel 10 to 14th parallels are as follows:

1) If an entrepreneur who supplied goods or services based on the non-issuance of a tax invoice fails to obtain a deduction of the input tax amount without any justifiable reason even though the supplier received a payment of the value-added tax from the supplier, the supplier shall, in principle, be liable for damages equivalent to the input tax amount not deducted for the supplier.

The same applies to the case where a person who received the supply did not deduct the input tax through the procedure for issuing a purchaser-issued tax invoice, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da265266 Decided December 28, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1.66 million to the Plaintiff at the expense of banner including value-added tax, (i) KRW 6.6 million on November 9, 2015, and (ii) KRW 48.4 million on May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice for KRW 48.4 million to the Defendant, without dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Defendant sustained the Plaintiff’s failure to deduct KRW 4.4 million, which is the input tax amount for the said banner.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for deduction of 4.4 million won, which is the amount equivalent to the above input tax amount, is justified.

The 6th parallel 1 to 2th parallels are as follows. “The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 4.8 million remaining after deducting the aforementioned KRW 4.4 million and the fine for negligence from KRW 13.2 million, which the Plaintiff recognized.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.