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

A. On February 2013, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of welfare facilities for the elderly to the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and operated the elderly welfare center on the 4, 5, and 6th floor of the Songpa Women's Culture Center located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 113, Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, and operated the business, such as a health room, a restaurant, a camera, and a beauty room.

In addition, around February 2013, the Plaintiff was approved by the Defendant as an “organization deemed a corporation”.

B. The Plaintiff did not pay the amount of tax when filing a preliminary return for the preliminary return of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax in 2013, and did not pay part of the amount of tax for the final return of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2014. The Plaintiff did not pay the amount of tax when filing the preliminary return of value-added tax for the first period and the second period

Accordingly, the defendant notified 18,224,302 won in total of the tax amount not paid by the plaintiff as shown in the attached list.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”. Around December 2016, the Defendant sent again a guide for payment of KRW 13,731,980, which was the amount stated in the above notice, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seems to have disputed KRW 13,731,980, which is the amount indicated in the above notice. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The party's assertion that the plaintiff himself/herself receives actual expenses from the users while operating the welfare center for older persons under the Welfare of Older Persons Act, and provides convenience facilities for older persons, such as sports facilities, use, four-day shop shop, restaurant, etc., so the above service constitutes "services provided as actual expenses to public interest organizations for their own business purposes" pursuant to Article 26 (1) 18 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the value-added tax should be exempted. Nevertheless, if the plaintiff filed a value-added tax return because he/she did not know well