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

A. The Plaintiff was established on May 23, 2016 and engaged in the soliciting business for subscription to communications, and the Plaintiff changed its trade name from B to A on December 23, 2016.

B. In 2016, the Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice of KRW 5,45,54,545 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from C (hereinafter “instant Party 1”) during the second taxable period of value-added tax (from July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016), and deducted each purchase tax invoice of KRW 20,115,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount when filing a return of value-added tax for the second taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter “second taxable period”).

C. The head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office determined that the tax invoice 1 of this case constituted a processed tax invoice after conducting a tax investigation on the 1st purchaser of this case, and the head of the Nam Daegu Tax Office determined that the tax invoice 2 of this case constituted a false tax invoice that was issued without actual transaction.

Upon receipt of the notice from the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office and the head of the Namgu Tax Office to the aforementioned purport, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice No. 1 was a processed tax invoice, and that the instant tax invoice No. 2 was a false tax invoice. On March 14, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 28,517,690 for the following reasons: (a) the input tax amount deduction for the instant tax invoice No. 1 and the non-taxation for the corporate tax; (b) the non-taxation deduction for the value-added tax on the instant tax invoice No. 2; and (c) the non-taxation deduction for the value-added tax on the instant tax invoice No. 2 and the addition for the qualified verification for corporate tax; and (d) the amount of KRW

"........"