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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 10, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 105,408,00 for the second term of 2012 against the Plaintiff.

A. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract form with AA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AA Development”) stating that the ○○○○○○○-dong 255-1, 255-1 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) was sold to KRW 2.7 billion (supply price) (hereinafter “the instant sales contract form”), and received a tax invoice of KRW 1,338,858,000 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) and the supply price of KRW 1,361,142,00 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”).

B. After November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for early refund of value-added tax for the second period of February 2012 with the Defendant at KRW 133,885,800, the amount to be refunded as to the instant tax invoice.

C. On September 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the actual purchase price of the instant officetel paid by the Plaintiff was KRW 1.6 billion as indicated in the details of financial transactions. Based on the above amount calculated in proportion to the amount, the Defendant issued a correction and notification (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on November 10, 2014 on the ground that the value-added tax was excessively refunded on the grounds that the excessive amount of value-added tax was stated differently from the fact in the supply price of the instant tax invoice on the basis that the amount was calculated in proportion to the building and the land value.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 2, 2015, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on April 7, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, AAB and thisCC were indicted by false issuance of the instant tax invoice. On September 8, 2016, the authorityB was in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam branch, etc. on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. on September 8, 2016, the authorityB was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, with prison labor for two years (joint penalty of a fine of KRW 10 million) and thisCC was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Branch 2015 High Court 2000), and the present appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016No000).

Facts without any dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul's Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff prepared the instant sales contract with AA development by stating that the instant officetel was sold in 2.7 billion won. Of the above 2.7 billion won, 1.6 billion won out of the above 2.7 billion won was loaned from the ○○ Federation and paid to AA development. The remaining payment obligations were suspended for two years, and the Plaintiff still bears the above obligations, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed first. The sales price of the said sales contract was a reasonable amount determined by an agreement, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the Plaintiff submitted a written statement to the effect that “at the time of investigation into AA development,” “at the time of the actual transaction amount of the instant officetel was determined as KRW 1.6 billion (including value-added tax),” and that “the rightB, at the time of the investigation into the above on February 26, 2014, was the joint operator of AA development, which stated that “at the time of the above tax investigation, the actual sale amount of the instant officetel was KRW 1.6 billion (including value-added tax) and was sold at the expense of a financial institution’s demand and interest expenses.” The rightB and thisCC, a joint operator of AA development, was indicted for the fraudulent issuance, etc. of the instant tax invoice and was sentenced to the conviction of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. from the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on September 8, 2016.

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff was sold at a discount of 1.6 billion won, not the purchase price of the instant officetel from AA Development, which is 2.7 billion won (supply price) on the sales contract of this case, the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case stating excessively the supply price, and received the excessive refund of the value-added tax for the second period of February 2012, and on this premise, it is reasonable to view that the disposition of this case made by the defendant against the plaintiff is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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