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

A. From August 1, 1994 to December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) operated the business of manufacturing Aluminum base metal in the trade name of 000-1, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) from an enterprise having a trade name of O metal, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 423,721,00 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount by deducting the value of the said input tax from the value of the output tax amount for the first period of 2005, the supply price of KRW 395,856,000 for the second period of 205, the supply price of KRW 27,865,000 for the second period of 205.

B. On May 6, 2010, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 28,173,600, value-added tax on KRW 1,173,600, value-added tax on KRW 20,198,910 in 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff deemed the instant tax invoice received from OM as a false tax invoice and deducted the relevant input tax amount from the fact, and that the Plaintiff filed a tax return by omitting KRW 93,297,00 in the second period of 2005 with respect to the Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Self-Governing Province”).

C. On November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 27, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually traded to the OM with the same content as the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice was false, while the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) As a result, the head of the Ansan Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the OM during the second taxable period from the 1st to 2005, the OM was registered as a business operator on February 1, 2003 and closed on December 6, 2005, and the actual operator was not actually operating at the registered place of business (the actual operator of the Si/Gun/Gu-Eup/Myeon-Eup/Myeon-Eup/Myeon-Eup/Myeon-si), and it was not actually operating at the registered place of business. The processed tax invoice was issued without a real transaction and immediately withdrawn in cash or remitted the transaction price to a third party’s account and then notified the Defendant of the total supply value of the tax invoice 2,690,344,00 won (including the supply value of the Plaintiff’s 170,400,2300,000,200, 2005, 207, 2005).

(2) As a result of the tax investigation conducted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, in light of the details of the purchase of electricity and refined oil, the Plaintiff was engaged in the business producing waste aluminium materials at the time of 2005, and entered the transaction account books in accordance with the Plaintiff’s measurement certificate. However, there was no transaction with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff, but in fact there was no transaction with the Plaintiff, △△ metal, △△ corporation, and △△△ Company, etc., which were recorded in the Plaintiff’s transaction account books, and the Plaintiff supplied the materials from the above companies and supplied them to the Plaintiff. In fact, it was revealed that the Plaintiff made a transaction with the Plaintiff to deliver the said materials to the Plaintiff to the △△△ City, and then without doing any real transaction with the OO metal, the Plaintiff made a transaction with the Plaintiff without making any actual transaction with the OM metal, it was clearly stated that the OM metal immediately transferred this money to another account or removed cash. Furthermore, during this process, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s financial act in the process of 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he actually purchased the quantity of the materials listed in the instant tax invoice. However, as seen earlier, the OM, stated in the instant tax invoice as the purchaser, stated as the result of the tax investigation that the Plaintiff did not operate the place of business, and reported the sales report to the Plaintiff by manipulating the entire financial transactions. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s companies listed in the Plaintiff’s transaction account book are the supplier of the materials to Do-si, Do-si, in fact, the purchaser of the instant tax invoice should be deemed to be the purchaser of the instant tax invoice, rather than the OM, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.