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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 207, which was imposed on the plaintiff on September 1, 2012, is revoked in all of the imposition of additional tax on the value-added tax for the second term portion of 2007, OOO, OO, OO, OO, and OO(=O, OO, and OO) imposed on November 1, 2013.

A. The plaintiff AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff company") OOOO-dong 957-2 representative OOO-dong

On the ground of 2426 square meters, the company constructing and selling OOO buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), including real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case"), entered into a contract for the supply of the commercial building of this case to sell the sales price to OOO, OO,OO,OO,OO(OO, andOOO) on February 7, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff reported value-added tax from January 2007 to January 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax on the sales tax invoice for the down payment and intermediate payment in accordance with the instant sales contract by issuing OO, OO, OO, OO, and OOO in total 4 OO, OO, and sales invoice.

C. Meanwhile, on January 6, 2010, the Plaintiff Company passed the payment date of intermediate payment and the remainder.

In cancelling the instant sales contract on the grounds that it was not paid, △O, OO, and OOOO (hereinafter “instant revised tax invoice”) were issued to KimCC, and on March 25, 2010, the Defendant filed a claim for refund of value-added tax originally reported and paid to the Defendant. On May 12, 2010, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff Company’s claim for correction on May 12, 2010, and rendered a decision to refund value-added tax O, OO, and OOO (including refund surcharges) to the Plaintiff Company from January 2007 to January 2008 (hereinafter “instant refund decision”), and notified the KimCC of taxation data.

D. However, the KimCC notified the Defendant of taxation data to cancel the sales contract of this case.

According to the supporting documents submitted by GimCC, the defendant submitted the supporting documents by asserting that the sales right of the commercial building of this case was already transferred from KimCC to the representative director DoDD (hereinafter referred to as "representative director of the plaintiff") of the plaintiff company before January 6, 2010, which was alleged that the plaintiff company cancelled the sales contract of this case. Thus, the revised tax invoice of this case issued by the plaintiff company to KimCC shall not be deemed a legitimate revised tax invoice. Thus, the plaintiff company issued the revised tax invoice of this case shall not be deemed a legitimate correction tax invoice, and the plaintiff company issued the revised tax invoice of this case on July 1, 2012, 207, the value-added taxO,OO,OO,OO,OO, 207 for the second period of September 1, 2012, and the value-added taxO,O,O, and additional taxO (including each disposition of this case) of this case.

E. On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiff Company filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 23, 2013, following the filing of an objection on each of the above dispositions. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff Company’s claim on April 30, 2013 (Provided, That a request for review on a disposition issued as of July 1, 2012, filed an objection exceeding ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the notice, and thus, dismissed the request on the ground of its illegality).

F. Meanwhile, on November 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the disposition of this case on the grounds that the grounds for the calculation of the additional tax were not stated in the instant disposition, and revised the disposition of this case by re-inform, OO, OO, OO, and OO on the two-yearly basis of the value-added tax in 2007 at OO, OO, OO, andOO, and the one-yearly value-added tax in 2008 at OO, OO,O, andOO, respectively, while reducing the value-added tax for the first half-yearly period of 207 at OO, OO, OO, andOO, respectively, on the aggregate of the additional tax (=the additional tax for the second half-yearly period of 207 + the additional tax for the value-added tax for the first half-yearly period of 208.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 8 through 11 (for each type of dispute, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

1) The instant sales contract was concluded on the ground of the part payment and the remainder payment of the KimCC.

On January 6, 2010, upon the declaration of cancellation of contract, the amendment tax invoice in this case was lawfully issued because it constitutes a ground for issuing the amendment tax invoice under Article 95 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree. Therefore, the disposition in this case premised on the fact that the contract in this case was not rescinded is unlawful.

2) Since the Plaintiff Company concluded a sales contract with E on the instant commercial building after cancelling the sales contract, and paid the value-added tax accordingly, the instant disposition constitutes double taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Notice of cancellation of the instant sales contract

A) The KimCC obtained loans from the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, and pursuant to the instant sales contract, the instant contract was concluded.

The sales price for commercial buildings shall be comprised of OO, OO, OO, OO, and the first part of the sales price for commercial buildings as part of the down payment among OO, OO, or OO.

OO, OO, OO, OO, O, O, total amount of OO, O, O, OO, O,O, andO as part of the second part of the intermediate payment. The Plaintiff paid OO, OO,OO, andO as part of the sales price of the instant commercial building on behalf of the KimCC.

B) In order for KimCC to not pay the third intermediate payment to the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff Company notified KimCC on several occasions from May 28, 2008 to July 11, 2009. In addition, from June 12, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff Company sent OO, OO, OO, and OOO (i.e., interest + O, OO, O, O, O, andOO) a notice of the cancellation of the instant sales contract.

2) Transfer of the right to sell the commercial building of this case

A) On February 3, 2009, before receiving the notice of the cancellation of the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff Company, KimCC entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff’s representative director to sell the sales right to the instant commercial building to OO, OO, and OO, and the Plaintiff’s representative director entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the loan obligations OO,OO, and OO(hereinafter “the sales contract of the instant sales right”).

B) The KimCC shall make a sales amount from the representative director of the Plaintiff in accordance with the sales contract of the instant sales right.

On February 13, 2009, after receiving OO, OO, and OO, the sales contract of this case was cancelled to the Plaintiff Company, and the certificate was issued to request the return of OO, OO, and OO to return the sales price paid to it.

C) In relation to this, KimCC filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap3OOOOO to seek the return of the loan to the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the representative director of the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit.

The above court filed a counterclaim seeking the return of OO, OO, and OOO won paid as the purchase price of the instant sales right against KimCC as the above court 2009Gahap12OO, and the appellate court rendered a decision in lieu of September 29, 2010 in the Seoul High Court 2010Na1O (main office) and 1OOO (Counterclaim) case (hereinafter referred to as the "civil lawsuit of this case"), the appellate court of this case, which was the appellate court of this case, decided on September 20, 2010, and the above compulsory conciliation included the content that "the representative director of the plaintiff has the right to dispose of the commercial building of this case as of February 3, 2009 between the plaintiff, the representative director of the company, and KimCC as of February 3, 2009. Accordingly, the above decision became final and conclusive on October 20, 201 because KimCC and the representative director of the plaintiff did not raise any objection.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 5, 6, 7, 10 evidence, Eul's 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination on the first argument of the Plaintiff Company

1) The circumstances leading to the disposition of this case and the evidence and the whole pleadings as seen earlier.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport, the following circumstances may be recognized or ratified:

A) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s representative director acquired the status as the buyer of the instant shopping mall pursuant to the sales contract between the Plaintiff’s representative director and the KimCC, and that the transferee is the representative director and the only registration director of the Plaintiff company, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff Company recognized such fact from the time of conclusion of the sales contract of the instant shopping mall, and that it was in fact approved further.

B) As to this, the Plaintiff Company asserted that, despite receiving KRW 168,927,420 from the Plaintiff’s representative director the sales price of the instant sales right, KimCC failed to perform its duty to provide documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression necessary to succeed to the loan, but such circumstance alone alone is difficult to deem that the sales contract of the instant sales right was null and void or cancelled (in addition, KimCC asserted that the Plaintiff’s representative director issued documents necessary to succeed to loans, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, and to implement the procedure for changing

C) On September 2, 2010, when the civil lawsuit of this case was in progress, the Plaintiff’s representative director’s worship of KimCC on September 2, 2010

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff Company drafted a written agreement to implement the sales contract of this case with respect to the commercial building of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff Company and the KimCC agreed to maintain the validity of the sales contract of this case on the premise that the sales contract of this case between the Plaintiff Company and the KimCC still remains valid in spite of the Plaintiff Company’s notice of cancellation, and it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was cancelled again on the ground that the said agreement was drafted in the name of the Plaintiff Company’s representative director.

D) The Plaintiff Company asserted that the meaning of the compulsory adjustment clause of the instant civil procedure is that the GimCC recovered the status of the seller of the instant commercial building and bears the obligation to implement the procedure for changing the ownership of the Plaintiff’s representative director. However, the compulsory adjustment clause of the instant civil procedure is merely to confirm that the right to dispose of the instant commercial building is the Plaintiff’s representative director, and KimCC is not obligated to implement the procedure for changing the ownership of the instant commercial building, or it does not appear that the Plaintiff’s representative director’s duty to pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s duty to implement the procedure for changing the ownership of the right to sell the sale of the instant commercial building or to pay KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s duty to implement the procedure for changing the ownership of the right to sell the sale of the instant commercial building (it cannot be deemed that the contract was rescinded by agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the KimCC or

E) If so, the sales contract of this case between the plaintiff representative director and KimCC is concluded.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s representative director took over the obligation to pay intermediate payments and remainder, including the obligation to pay loans, to the NACF. Accordingly, even if KimCC did not pay intermediate payments and remainder to the Plaintiff company, or the Plaintiff Company paid the Plaintiff’s loan by subrogation, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s representative director has the right to cancel the instant sales contract on the ground that it was merely an intermediate payment and remainder payment, or the obligation to pay the loan by subrogation.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the sales contract of the instant commercial building between the Plaintiff Company and KimCC cannot be deemed to have been lawfully rescinded by notification of cancellation of the contract on January 6, 2010, as alleged by the Plaintiff Company, and therefore, the instant revised tax invoice issued on the premise that the sales contract of the instant case was lawfully rescinded cannot be deemed to have been lawfully issued. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is rejected.

E. Judgment on the second argument of the Plaintiff Company

In full view of the facts and circumstances as seen earlier, the reason why the commercial building in this case was transferred from the Plaintiff Company to E is not the transfer of the commercial building in this case through the sales contract concluded between E and the Plaintiff after the cancellation of the sales contract in this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff Company, but the Plaintiff Company recognized that the representative director of the Plaintiff had the right to sell the commercial building in this case or the right to sell the commercial building in this case under the compulsory adjustment order of civil procedure on the premise that the sales contract in this case between E and KimCC is valid. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff Company again acquired the right to sell the commercial building in this case from the representative director of the Plaintiff who was holding the right to sell the commercial building in this case with the consent of the Plaintiff representative director or by other methods, and that it was transferred to E along with the other commercial buildings in this case. In addition, considering the nature of value added tax imposed on each distribution stage, the Plaintiff Company imposed value added tax on the commercial building in this case as it did not have any reason to impose the disposition in this case.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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