Defendant Jinju Director.

C. (2) The part concerning the determination on the legality of the disposition of the penalty tax and paragraph (2)

C. Paragraph (3) is the same as the entry of each corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

(a) [1. part]

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in a comprehensive construction business, performed new construction work from around 2006, D new construction work from around 2007, E road construction work, F hotel facility construction work, etc.

B. After conducting the consolidated investigation against the Plaintiff from 2005 to 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the head of the Jinju Tax Office of taxation data containing the following:

(1) With respect to the new construction of C in the business year 2006, the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice containing KRW 976,363,636 and value-added tax of KRW 97,636,364 to C, while changing the original construction cost of KRW 2,50,00,000 from KRW 3,671,00,000,000,000,000 for the original construction cost of C, and accordingly, issued a false tax invoice containing KRW 97,636,364 to C, and accordingly, issued a false tax invoice containing KRW 910,982,758 and value-added tax of KRW 91,08,276 from IM tons, etc. and received a false tax invoice containing KRW 910,988,810,752,78,77827,7827,774, a short-term financing officer at the time of collection of the above amount (hereinafter “short-term employee”).

(2) The Plaintiff is below D New Construction Corporation in the business year 2007.