A. The Plaintiff, on April 1, 2009, was the trade name “B,” and the Plaintiff was engaged in the instant business as a person who was engaged in the instant business since the time when the business registration was completed by having his/her place of business as “B,” and his/her spouse D was also engaged in the said business.

- 1st year 2009 - E 299,607,000 E E 39,06,000 E 2nd year 2009,205,200 F 592,618,000- G 220,765,000-- - January 1, 2010 E 228,404,00 E 354,179,000 for 3579,000 G 20,866,00- - 20,86,00-1st year H 93,575,000 - Total1,195,294,294,000-1,639,000

B. As to the value-added tax from January 2009 to January 201, 201, the Plaintiff paid a return by deducting the purchase price of the purchase tax invoice from the tax base.

- - 12,92,140,1409 - - 5,244,900,920,50-12,775,600 (Reduction) 36,653,080 23,877,480,480, 200 - 35,417,90-10,490,490,490,90,900 (reduction) for the total of the principal tax (amount of tax) for the taxable period of 209 - 36,65,244,90,980,980,570 (reduction), 57,500,507,5714,536,746,575,747,570,000 (Reduction) for the total of the principal tax for the taxable period of 209.

C. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from June 29, 2012 to August 10, 2012, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that each of the above tax invoices was issued and received without a real transaction and notified the Defendant of the fact. Accordingly, the Defendant denied the deduction of the tax base based on each of the above purchase tax invoices, thereby increasing the tax base amount, reducing the sales amount on the sales tax invoice to the tax base amount, and reducing the amount from the sales amount on the sales tax invoice; however, the penalty tax on the sales and purchase amount of each false tax invoice as above shall be collected from the Plaintiff on September 3, 2012.