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

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3, 8, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers), show the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased tax invoices of KRW 1,135,58,440 (36,942,60,600 on September 30, 201; (b) 191,597,200 on October 17, 201; (c) 358,047,620 on October 31, 201; (d) 181,806,500 on November 15, 201; and (e) 53,660,500 on November 30, 201; and (e) 53,660,200 on November 31, 201; and (e) 30,305,30,000 on the input tax invoice; and (e) 35,30,305,30,000 on December 31, 2011.

The head of the Busan District Tax Office determined that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice which was issued without real transaction as the so-called "data commercial" that issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and notified the defendant of this fact.

Accordingly, the Defendant, on September 1, 2012, issued a revised notice of the value-added tax amount of KRW 188,549,510 (including additional tax) and corporate tax of KRW 22,711,740 (including additional tax) that reverts to the business year of 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201, by deducting the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice.

The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Plaintiff actually purchased scrap metal from B as stated in the instant tax invoice and received it, and accordingly, received the relevant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

Even if the company that supplied the Plaintiff with scrap metal does not fall under B as the supplier under the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff is prior to commencing the transaction.