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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of scrap metal around November 15, 2004.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 14,806,60 for the purchase of scrap metal from B (F: hereinafter “C”) during the second taxable period in 2011; ② in the first taxable period in 2012, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 27,118,00 for the purchase of scrap metal from D (hereinafter “D”); and ③ in the second taxable period in 2013, the Plaintiff filed a tax invoice of KRW 782,104,890 for the purchase of scrap metal from E (F; hereinafter “F”); and (2) filed a value-added tax return of each of the aforementioned tax invoices and each of the instant tax invoices.

C. The Defendant, deeming each of the instant tax invoices as false tax invoices, did not deduct the input tax amount on each of the instant tax invoices from the output tax amount. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a revised notice to the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015, of KRW 2,510,200, value-added tax on the second term portion of the tax invoice for the year 201, value-added tax 4,449,510, and value-added tax on the second term portion of the tax invoice for the year 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions” in total) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 14, 2015, but was dismissed on May 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21 and 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s respective suppliers of this case, including C, D, and F (hereinafter the above three companies).

2) Since each of the instant tax invoices was actually supplied by suppliers, each of the instant tax invoices is not a tax invoice stating differently from the facts. 2)