2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In the first term portion of value-added tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in 2008, KRW 00 for the first term portion of 2009, KRW 00 for the second term portion of 2009, KRW 00 for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 00 for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 00 for the first term portion of 201, KRW 00 for the second term portion of 201, and KRW 00 for the second term portion of 200 for 2008, value-added tax for 200 for the second term portion of 209, KRW 00 for the second term portion of 209, KRW 100 for the second term portion of 209, KRW 100 for the second term portion of 2010, KRW 10 for the second term portion of 200 for the second term portion of 201 for the second term portion of 2010 each (total).

A. From July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) 34 copies of the sales tax invoice of KRW 00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”); (b) from January 1, 201 to June 30, 201, 10 to 34 copies of the sales tax invoice of CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) issued one copy of the sales tax invoice of KRW 00 to 20,000; and (c) reported and paid the value-added tax after deducting the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount of the above supply.

B. During the investigation process of AA value-added tax on BB, the head of △ District Tax Office: (a) determined the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice without real transaction; and (b) notified the Defendant of the taxation data; (c) on October 10, 2013, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a result of a disguised transaction different from the fact; and (d) deemed that the instant tax invoice was due to a disguised transaction, thereby notifying the Defendant of the correction and notification of KRW O (including additional taxes) upon the issuance of the said tax invoice.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination on this matter, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 2014

31. The dismissal was made.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the sale of BB trade is not a processing sale, it is illegal for the Defendant to impose penalty tax on the Plaintiff due to the issuance of a disguised tax invoice under Article 22(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same).

2) Even if the sale of BB trade is not a normal transaction, it is unlawful to calculate the value-added tax, including the total sales of BB andCC, since it is not a disguised transaction that issued tax invoices to the actual supplier and other companies, but a processing transaction that does not have the actual transaction itself.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Judgment on the main claim

Considering the overall purport of pleadings as to whether the sale of BB trade was due to normal trade, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 7, and 10, the whole purport of pleadings is as follows: ① there is no room for the plaintiff to engage in the relevant type of business prior to opening AB metal; ② there is no room for the office of OB, which is the place of business of AB metal, to be used as the place of business of same trade; ③ The plaintiff stated that the place of business of BB trade was used as the place of business of the BB trade; ④ The plaintiff was listed as the shareholder of BB trade since 2010; ④ the fact that the plaintiff discontinued the BB metal business from the date of commencement of the tax investigation; ⑤ the fact that the transfer of 200,000,000 won to the 200,000,000 won from the 200,000,000 won from the 20,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim on the premise that the transaction with BB is a normal transaction is not reasonable.

D. Determination on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking refund of the difference between the value-added tax amount calculated by including the sales amount of the above trading company and the value-added tax amount other than that of the above trading company, but the lawsuit seeking the direct performance of specific obligations to the administrative agency under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not recognized. However, in the case where the administrative agency received the disposition of rejection by filing an application for refund of value-added tax against the defendant, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit of this case for direct refund of value-added tax without filing an application for refund of value-added tax against the defendant. As such, the part of the conjunctive claim in this case is unlawful (In addition, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case on the premise that the sales amount of the BB trade is normal transaction upon filing an objection, but sought the revocation of the disposition in this case on the premise that the sales amount of the BB trade is the normal transaction (if the sales amount of the BB trade is the most trade, it is difficult to view that the part of the conjunctive claim was properly filed through the previous trial procedure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.