The Plaintiff’s taxation claim No. B 1) The head of the leisure tax office had conducted a tax investigation into the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “C”) from January 20, 2014 to February 6, 2015. During that process, B discovered the fact that the Plaintiff had been awarded a contract for electrical construction from 2010 to 2012 and had omitted sales from the sales. (ii) The head of the Seodaemun-gu District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data on B of the taxation data to explain the omission of the sales to B on July 20, 2016.

3) Based on the results of the tax investigation into C by the director of the Gwangju Tax Office, the head of the Gwangju Tax Office issued a revised and notified each of the following dispositions to B, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). On July 17, 2017, the head of the Gwangju Tax Office issued a contract for the electrical construction on the following grounds: (a) on January 1, 2010, value-added tax (value-added tax) 92,333,070; (b) 54,382,610, 2011, 108,017,50, 215, 870, 117,02, 680, 2012, 162, 742, 520, 2017: (c) on the premise that the construction of the instant electrical construction was not executed as an employee of the Gwangju Tax Office; (b) on the grounds that it was unlawful for C to cancel the construction of each of the instant electrical construction works on the grounds that:

However, on September 13, 2018, the Gwangju District Court deliberated on the instant case, dismissed B’s claim on the ground that “B had been executed by being awarded a contract for electrical construction from C, and thus, B’s claim on the premise that the instant disposition under the premise that B had been executed by being awarded a contract for electrical construction from C is lawful.”

(2017Guhap923). B as at the time of appeal against the above judgment, the above case is pending in the Gwangju High Court 2018Nu5733.

B. B Disposition No. 1 of this case