The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

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

The imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 201 on January 4, 2016 by the former Young-gu Defendant on the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016 shall be revoked, respectively, the imposition of value-added tax of 345,239,854 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2012, 404,626,342 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2012, 429,81,030 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2013, 260,210,077 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2013, 195,70,168 won for the second term of

A. On April 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of running food wholesale business and retail business under ○○-si ○○dong 850-5 comprehensive shopping mall 202, and corrected the main business as wholesale/trade on May 19, 2010.

B. From February 2, 2011 to February 2013, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 41,582,147,039, total supply value from six companies, such as CCC (hereinafter “CC”), a company purchasing Aluminium (hereinafter “C”), and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff supplied 41,927,49,475 won total supply value of 41,927,49,475 won, including DD trade (hereinafter “DD trade”), a company selling Aluminium, a company selling Aluminium, and the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return.

D. According to the above notification, the Defendant conducted an integrated investigation with the Plaintiff from February 25, 2015 to December 18, 2015, and the Plaintiff issued and received the instant tax invoice for the purpose of price manipulation of DNA trade without real trade, on January 4, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff issued and received the instant tax invoice for the purpose of price manipulation of DNA trade, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant tax appeal on February 4, 201, 201, based on the second-term value-added tax of 345,239,854, value-added tax of 404,626,342, value-added tax of 1 year 2012, value-added tax of 429,811,030, value-added tax of 2013, value-added tax of 260,077, value-added tax of 210,077, 2013 (hereinafter “instant appeal”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased Aluminum in fact from each purchasing entity, such as CCC, and received the purchase tax invoice; (b) supplied Aluminum in a normal manner to DDR trade; and (c) issued the sales tax invoice. The instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice was due to false processing trade is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Aluminium aluminium is hard by putting melting aluminium into a principal form, and is used for various processing purposes. In Korea, only import acid is distributed in accordance with the various processing purposes, and imported Aluminium aluminium is traded only with the transfer of a certificate of storage of goods, without being kept in a warehouse.

2) Around 2015, CCC representative director 00 filed a complaint with the Seoul Southern District Court for the crime of embezzlement, occupational breach of trust, and bank loans of 200 million won, including that CCC’s sales of 30 billion won was planned to be grass off and processed alumumumum sales without actual transaction with DD trade. 3) After 2015, CCC or EECE Corporation issued a false tax invoice with respect to alumumum which it purchased from the Plaintiff, etc. for the purpose of 70 billion won for the crime of violation of the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (Seoul High Court Decision 2000 million won) and the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 200 billion won (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201 billion won) and 700 billion won (Seoul District Court Decision 200 million won). 70 billion won and 700 billion won (Seoul District Court Decision 200 million won) were dismissed by the Prosecutor’s.

D. Determination

1) The meaning that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the facts is that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the necessary entries in a tax invoice refer to a case where the necessary entries in a tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the actual supply of goods or service or the price and time of the supplier, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10

In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements unless the pertinent facts are proven that the facts at issue were not eligible in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, although the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements exists in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, but if it is proved that the facts at issue were presumed to have been in conformity with the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6568, Sept. 24, 200

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the tax invoice of this case received or issued by the Plaintiff constitutes a tax invoice with different contents, and the evidence and circumstance cited by the Plaintiff is insufficient to reverse it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff, as well as CCC that produced automobile parts, was engaged in food wholesale and retail business, did not have traded Aluminum prior to the issuance of the instant tax invoice, and both CCC and the Plaintiff, made a significant increase in sales and purchase volume due to the issuance of the instant tax invoice. Moreover, in the criminal case against DDR, it was recognized that CCC secured only the Plaintiff as a customer through the introduction of DDR trade. AD trade did not require a special transaction with CCC or the Plaintiff as a company that imported and sold Aluminumumum prior to the issuance of the instant tax invoice. ② The Plaintiff’s representative: (a) around April 4, 2014, ○○○ was the Plaintiff’s receipt of orders from CCC as well as the Plaintiff’s receipt of orders from CCC; and (b) was prepared with CCC at the time of the investigation and trial on door ○○; (c) was actually made with CCC, but the Plaintiff did not have any consistency in the Plaintiff’s actual transaction with 2G 1, 2014.

③ According to the public notice of “request for cooperation in tax investigation” (Evidence No. 12), it is found that the DD commerce submitted to the same vice versa, a warehouse operator, a certificate of transfer of goods (written confirmation of transfer) to verify ownership of stored goods at the time of transfer of Aluminium from 2011 to May 1, 2014, and it is not true that CCC issued a delivery order for the shipment of goods to ○○ beneficial frame, and it is also deemed that the same applies to the Plaintiff.

④ According to the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of aluminium was made on the same day and the price transaction was made on the same day. In particular, in the case of September 23, 2011, the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of aluminium at a lower price rate cannot be seen as a normal transaction method, as it can be verified that the aluminium price sold to CCC was again sold at a lower price via the Plaintiff. More than anything else, even if the criminal judgment was not bound by the fact-finding in the criminal trial, barring special circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the above criminal judgment is inconsistent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199; Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Oct. 26, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2000Du424, Oct. 24, 200).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.