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

The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in Cmotor vehicle sales agency (trade name D sales agency) in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the third floor.

Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”) is a corporation established on April 17, 200 and engaged in automobile rental business, etc. in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building and G, and H (hereinafter “H”) is a corporation established on May 28, 2010 and is engaged in automobile information manufacturing business, etc. at the foregoing place.

The Plaintiff: (a) during the second and second taxable periods from 2010 to 2012, and the second taxable periods from 2013, based on the supply value of vehicle purchase services supplied by H as follows, the respective dispositions of this case were conducted in relation to the tax invoices Nos. 829,281,306 related to the tax invoices Nos. 4 and 6; and (b) deducted each input tax amount, and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the respective input tax amount.

(Unit) The Defendant: (a) paid 148,656,960,865, 6963, 201 for the total amount of supply value of the items issued in the first half of 2010 for the first half of 193,123,940, 9409, 312, 393 201 for the second half of 148,656, 960 14,865, 6963, 198,034 19,801,804 404 for the second half of 2011 for the total amount of 178,427, 67817, 7675 to the Plaintiff 267, 147,604, 607, 6057, 607, 607, 60384, 20837, 209, 207836364, 29784, 2075

Accordingly, on July 20, 2017, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount of KRW 389,482,372 (i.e., the supply value of KRW 178,427,678,676,600, KRW 63,478,094) on the ground that the said tax invoice Nos. 4 through 6 of the said tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) is a false tax invoice against the Plaintiff on the ground that it is a false tax invoice (i.e., KRW 178,427,678, KRW 63,478,094) from the input tax amount on the ground that it is a tax invoice, as listed below, at the second period of 20