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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 16,262,160 on the first term portion of 2013 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2014.

A. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract form with AA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AA Development”) that sells 56,858,976 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract form”) the 3rd floor S-3032 of ○○○○○○-dong 255-1 located in 255-1 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel”) to the 556,858,976 won (supply price), and received the tax invoice for the portion of the building (hereinafter referred to as “the tax invoice of this case”).

B. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for early refund of value-added tax for the first period of January 2013 with the Defendant having the amount to be refunded as to the instant tax invoice KRW 26,858,970, and received the said amount of tax on April 9, 2013.

C. After conducting a tax investigation on AA development on December 2, 2013 through February 28, 2014 (hereinafter “tax investigation of this case”), the Defendant confirmed that the sale price of the instant officetel was KRW 350 million paid for financial transactions, etc., not KRW 56,858,976 on the sales contract of this case. Based on the above amount calculated on the basis of the above amount, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff on October 1, 2014 that the value-added tax was excessively refunded on the ground that the amount of KRW 99,74,00 out of the supply price of the instant tax invoice was excessively stated differently from the fact.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 7, 2015, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on April 23, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, AAB and thisCC were indicted by false issuance of the instant tax invoice. On September 8, 2016, the authorityB was in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam branch, etc. on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. on September 8, 2016, the authorityB was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, with prison labor for two years (joint penalty of a fine of KRW 10 million) and thisCC was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Branch 2015 High Court 2000), and the present appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016No000).

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's No. 1, 2, 3, Eul's No. 1 through 5, 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff prepared the instant sales contract by deeming that the instant officetel was sold in 556,858,976 won with AA development. Of the above money, KRW 350 million was loaned from ○ Bank and paid to AA development. The remaining remainder payment obligations were suspended for two years, and the Plaintiff still bears the above obligations for two years, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed. The sales price of the said sales contract was determined by agreement, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10, the plaintiff submitted a written statement to the effect that "at the time of the tax investigation of this case, the actual sales price of the officetel of this case is 350 million won borrowed from the bank, and that "at the time of the tax investigation of this case, the actual sales price of the officetel of this case is 350 million won borrowed from the bank, and the acquisition and registration tax was paid for the increased amount of value-added tax refunded in relation to the increased sales price." At the time of the tax investigation of this case, the rightB, which was the joint operator of AA development, stated that "at the time of the tax investigation of this case, the actual sales price of the officetel of this case is 350 million won (including value-added tax) and that "the rightB and thisCC, who was the joint operator of AA development, was indicted for a false issuance of the tax invoice of this case and was sentenced to the crime of violation of the Punishment of the Tax Evaders Act in Suwon District Court on September 8, 2016.

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff received discount from AA Development to sell the instant officetel at a price of KRW 350 million, not exceeding KRW 56,858,976,000,000,000, which is the sales price on the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff may be recognized as having received the instant tax invoice containing excessive supply price and received excessive refund of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2013. The written evidence Nos. 3 and 11 alone are insufficient to establish the above recognition. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was lawful on the premise that the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.