A. On September 10, 1988, the Plaintiff is a regional trade union established for organization with workers belonging to the transportation company in the Incheon metropolitan area. On January 6, 2003, the Plaintiff registered its business in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon, and operated a bus outside advertisement business.

B. The Plaintiff declared the output tax amount of KRW 74,818,181, and the input tax amount of KRW 40,178,545, and the tax amount of KRW 34,639,637, as to the value-added tax for the first time in 2013.

C. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) deemed part of the issue portion of the sales tax invoice issued in the first period of value-added tax return for the first period of 2013 as the portion reverted to the first period of 2012; and (b) reduced the output tax amount to KRW 56,24,800; and (c) deemed that the issue portion of the purchase invoice was an expenditure not directly related to the business, and thus, (d) deemed that all of KRW 40,178,545 that the Plaintiff reported as the input tax amount as the input tax amount to not be recognized as the input tax amount; and (e) revised and notified the value-added tax for the first period of 2013 as the principal tax amount to KRW 56,224,801 ( separate tax amount to KRW 1,854,510).

Upon raising an objection on December 10, 2013, the Defendant recognized the input tax amount of KRW 5,976,550 received from Busan Passenger Co., Ltd. as the input tax amount, among KRW 40,178,545, which was not recognized as the input tax amount through reinvestigation, and corrected the amount of KRW 50,248,251 as the principal tax for KRW 1st year in 2013 as the input tax amount ( separate tax of KRW 1,708,804).

(2) The disposition of imposition of value-added tax on November 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”), which was imposed on November 10, 2013.

On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal by asserting that the instant disposition of taxation, which did not deduct the input tax amount, was unlawful even though the Plaintiff was related to the business, was dismissed on June 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1 to 3, evidence 6, each entry of Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The case.