2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The Plaintiff is a wholesale corporation that imports or imports and supplies scrap iron in Korea. On June 13, 2012, the Defendant disposed of the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”).

(3).

(a) Although the Plaintiff sold scrap metal imported from a Hong Kong corporations around October 2008 to KRW 0,000,000 in the AA industry, only a tax invoice for KRW 00,000,000,000 shall be submitted, and the remaining tax invoice for KRW 0,000,000 shall not be issued and the sales return was omitted in light of the fact that the Plaintiff omitted the sales return for KRW 2,00,000,000 for the second year of 2008, and corporate tax for the business year of 2008

The first disposition of this case was imposed (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition of this case").

② Although the Plaintiff sold 1,062,000,000 scrap metal purchased from BBG and CCC from June 2007 to April 2008 to DD (hereinafter “DD”), the Plaintiff issued and issued tax invoices to EE Companies (hereinafter “E Companies”) in the first year of 2007, deeming that the Plaintiff issued and issued the tax invoices in the future (hereinafter “DDD”), and the value-added tax amounting to KRW 0,00,000 for the first year of 207, value-added tax amounting to KRW 0,000,000 for the second year of 2007, and value-added tax amounting to KRW 0,000,000 for the first year of 208 (hereinafter “second disposition”).

On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 23, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. As to the first disposition of this case

The first disposition was made on the premise that around October 2008 the imported scrap metal was supplied in KRW 0,000,000,000.

However, in addition to the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 17, 22, and 23, the following facts can be recognized, and it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff supplied scrap metal exceeding the value of supply stated in the tax invoice issued in the AA industry by all evidence submitted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On August 2008, the Plaintiff sold 0,000 tons of scrap metal imported to FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF”) in KRW 0,000,000,000, and around that time, received 00,000,000 won as down payment from F (F to sell a part of the volume of the AA industry, while FF intended to sell it, it paid a part of the down payment in the AA industry).

② F waived the acceptance of scrap metal due to the decline in domestic prices of scrap metal, and the Plaintiff transferred the imported scrap metal from the introduction of F around October 8, 2008 to the open space of the AA industry (representative yellowO).

③ At around October 2008, AAA industry supplied scrap metal 0,000 tons to GGG steel, and purchased scrap metal 0,000 tons kept by the Plaintiff, and the price was paid in accordance with the release of scrap metal.

④ The AAA industry released scrap metal from the GG steel is about 000 tons, and the AA industry paid to the Plaintiff KRW 00,000,000 for the above 00t price.

⑤ On December 2008, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with MO on December 10, 2008, for approximately 0,000 tons of the scrap metal being kept in custody, to be exported to the Myanmar, and to request it to deliver it not to interfere with the export. However, on December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff committed suicide on and around February 2, 2008, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with PO on the ground that the KimO, the representative director of FF, committed a voluntary disposal of the said scrap metal in collusion with OO, and the Plaintiff supplied that the instant scrap metal was stored in the open space of the AAA industry, not that the Plaintiff supplied the said scrap metal to the open space of the investigation agency thereafter.

6. At the time, the YellowO disposed of all of the remaining scrap metal kept in custody to 25 persons, such as steelO at will.

7. Tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 (value of KRW 000,000,000, value of KRW 0000,000,000, which is the sum of the above 000t price of KRW 000,000 on October 28, 2008 (value of KRW 00,000,000, value-added tax, value-added tax of KRW 00,00,00)

United States issued the AA industry as a person to whom it is supplied.

8. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigative agency on suspicion of tax evasion, etc. due to the omission of sales, etc. on the ground of the disposition in the instant case, but was subject to a decision not to prove evidence.

9. The AA industry and the Plaintiff lack of material to prove that there was a transaction of the entire import scrap metal. As seen earlier, the AA industry intended to purchase part of the scrap metal from the Plaintiff, but its payment method, the Plaintiff’s export to the Myanmar, the Plaintiff’s import to the Myanmar, and in light of the process of criminal complaints and investigation, it seems that the AA industry is not in the custodian’s position.

2) As to the second disposition of this case

The tax authority shall prove that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer is written differently from the fact.

However, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigation agency for suspicion of tax evasion, etc. due to the issuance of the aforementioned disguised tax invoices, etc., but the investigation agency made a decision that there was no suspicion of having been suspected of having received the false tax invoices after the investigation into the EE company. The O head of the O tax office can only recognize the fact that he notified the EE company that there was no suspicion of receiving the false tax invoices, and it is insufficient to view that the tax invoice issued and issued by the Plaintiff to the EE company is different from the fact in consideration of all the evidence presented by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.