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

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, and the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added in the following paragraphs, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, " July 8, 201, which will be the second half of 2011" is " July 1, 2011 (from No. 1 to 5)."

Then, 'the end of September 2007', which will be the 6th nineth day, is changed from the end of September 2007 to the end of December 2008.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 81, Article 80, Article 66, and Article 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the determination of an objection shall bind the relevant administrative agencies. However, with respect to the imposition of value-added tax for the first period from the second period of 2006 to the second period of 2007 among the instant dispositions, the Defendant already imposed value-added tax but subsequently issued a decision to cancel the disposition in the process of filing the objection, and the relevant parts are illegal.

B. Determination

1) In full view of the evidence A, evidence 2, 6, and 7, and evidence 2 from 2, the following facts may be recognized:

① From October 21, 2008 to November 19, 2008, the mid-term regional tax office, while conducting a personal consolidated investigation with the Plaintiff, determined that the pertinent tax invoice was a false tax invoice. Accordingly, on February 16, 2009, the Defendant received a false tax invoice from the Plaintiff, which was submitted to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2006, and submitted to the Plaintiff a tax invoice for the second period of value-added tax, the first period of value-added tax, the first period of value-added tax, the second period of value-added tax, and the second period of value-added tax, the second period of value-added tax in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “first disposition”). ② The Plaintiff, BB, and CCC, which was the actual representative of the Plaintiff and BBCC, submitted the tax invoice for the same purpose as that of the investigation to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff submitted it to the 201BB8.

③ Around April 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Regional Tax Office regarding the initial disposition, and submitted the written objection as data such as a confirmation of the fact that BB and CCC prepared, BB’s wire call content (Evidence A6-3), and CCC’s written answer (Evidence A6-4) on November 25, 2008, and the tax invoice related to DDD is the same as the fact. BB stated that at the time of review by the Central Regional Tax Office, the Plaintiff was present in the Central Regional Tax Office and was directly traded with the Plaintiff (Evidence 6-6) (Evidence 6).

④ On June 26, 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office, based on the above data and BB, and CCC’s false statements, deemed the Plaintiff as a bona fide trading party and revoked the initial imposition.

⑤ After that, BB and CCC referred to the fact that the initial tax investigation was conducted in the relevant criminal investigation, etc. and made a false statement at the time of revocation. On March 10, 2011, the National Tax Service, upon conducting a tax investigation corresponding to the integrated personal investigation, converted the type of the tax investigation into a criminal investigation (tax evasion) around April 18, 201 according to the results of the investigation of the relevant criminal case, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition on July 1, 201 based on the results of the investigation.

2) In a case where the grounds for objection are recognized as correct in the course of the method of appeal as to the method of appeal, and accordingly the necessary disposition was made, the previous disposition may not be reversed without any justifiable reason, and the previous disposition may not be rescheduled, in light of the purport of the law recognizing the method of appeal and the method of correction accordingly, but where the previous disposition is revoked in the procedure of appeal due to the use of deceptive techniques (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu63, Jul. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu63, Jul. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu63, Jul. 26, 1983; and the binding force of the ruling, under the same circumstance, cannot

As seen earlier, the director of a regional regional tax office, and the director of a regional tax office of China, upon the Plaintiff’s request, may again revoke the initial disposition, referring to various data that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted retroactively to BB,CC, and other false statements at the Plaintiff’s request, and as long as the initial disposition was revoked in the appeal procedure that the first disposition was made by using the same trick, and the Defendant may again take the instant disposition. In addition, as long as BB and CCC stated otherwise as the initial disposition was stated differently from the initial disposition at the time of the investigation into the relevant criminal case, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as being under the same circumstances as at the time when the initial disposition was revoked, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the second director of a regional tax office of the regional tax

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.