2. The Defendant’s corporate tax of 711,150 won, and July 1, 2010, each of the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014.

2. The legality of disposition.

A. (1) The purchaser of this case alleged that the Defendant Plaintiff purchased scrap metal constitutes a disguised tax invoice different from the fact that each of the instant tax invoices was received from the purchaser of this case.

As such, insofar as the Plaintiff received a disguised tax invoice in the course of purchasing the actual scrap metal and received an input tax deduction unjustly, and the company that actually purchased the scrap metal (hereinafter “actual trader”) did not receive evidentiary documents under each subparagraph of Article 116(2) of the Corporate Tax Act or received a disguised tax invoice different from the actual trader, it is reasonable to impose an additional tax on the Defendant pursuant to Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act. (2) The Plaintiff ordinarily traded with the instant purchaser, and even if the instant purchaser was so-called “data”, it is unlawful to impose an additional tax on the Plaintiff without the Defendant’s failure to disclose the actual trader. (b) The relevant statutes are as indicated in the relevant statutes.

C. (1) The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment (excluding a corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree) shall, in cases where a corporation (excluding a corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with respect to its business by a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree and fails to receive evidentiary documents under any subparagraph of Article 116(2) or receives false evidentiary documents, except in cases where the proviso to Article 116(2) is applicable.