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

Pursuant to the alliance agreement, ethyl Russz. (hereinafter “instant service”) installed and managed cash automation machines and automatic entry machines (hereinafter “ROMs”) in convenience stores, subway stations, etc. for services, including deposit withdrawal, balance inquiry, etc. (hereinafter “instant services”). The Plaintiff reported only the portion of the fee received from the customers who received the instant service through the CDs, less the amount paid for ethylsz. (hereinafter “instant key amount”) from the fee received from the customers who received the instant service through the said CDs, and did not receive a tax invoice for the instant key amount.

The Defendant, on March 25, 2015, issued a revised notice of KRW 96,363,640 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, on March 25, 2015, on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the tax invoice for the issue amount of this case was determined as the subject of the penalty tax for non-proof of evidence under Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9898, Dec.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserts that whether ethylis is directly providing the instant service to customers, or whether ethylis does not directly provide the instant service to the customers, and that the instant key issue amount does not constitute a case where evidentiary documents, such as a tax invoice, are not paid for the Plaintiff’s supply of ethylis, and thus, does not constitute a case where the instant service need to be received.

Article 76 (5) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides services to a business operator in relation to the business and under the Value-Added Tax Act.