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

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in steel wholesale business in the wife population B in Permitted-si.

The supply value (won) 1 C 201 2nd 162,408,00 2nd 2nd 125,736,000 2nd 2nd 2010 2nd 33,071,000 4nd 98,987,000 2nd 156,259,000 2nd 179,982,000 G 2010 2nd 179,982,000 2nd 2nd 2010 2nd 119,746,000 total 876,189,000

B. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) equivalent to KRW 876,189,000 in total from C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “instant purchaser”) during the taxable period from the second half to the second half of 2011, as follows. During the said taxable period, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount equivalent to the said purchase amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing a value-added tax return during the said taxable period, and then appropriated the said purchase amount as necessary expenses at the time of filing a tax return for the year 201 and 2011.

C. On November 11, 2013, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was written differently from the fact, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the input tax amount equivalent to the purchase amount on the said tax invoice was added to KRW 109,864,186, 2010, KRW 22,176,959, KRW 24,678,076, and KRW 156,719,200, in total, value-added tax on KRW 24,678,076 in 2011, and KRW 156,719,200, which was the value-added tax for KRW 20,376,864, and KRW 5,142,743, the corporate tax for year 2011, KRW 17,519,600 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). For the same reason, the Defendant applied penalty tax to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

The plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful