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

A. In 2009, the Plaintiff, as a virtual mobile network operator, sold a device directly to the customer during the 2nd taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter “direct sales method”) or to the agency, supplied the device to the customer by the agency (hereinafter “agency sales method”), and the agent agreed to use the device for a certain period of time or more by the customer.

B. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for refund of value-added tax for the second term portion of the device without deducting subsidies from the value of supply, and on January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for refund of KRW 1,251,567,792 of value-added tax for the second term portion of the device in 2009, stating that “The amount reduced as a result of the Plaintiff’s granting subsidies in supplying the device falls under the discount amount, and thus, should be deducted from the tax base.”

(Units: 2,375,480,908 237,548,092 agency sales method 10,140,197,000 1,014,019,70 in total, 12,515,67,908 1,251,567,792

C. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “an application for rectification for the direct sales method is adopted, but an application for rectification for the agency sales method is rejected.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) refusing to file a claim for correction against the agency sale method.

On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal. However, the said claim was dismissed on November 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sold the terminal to the "agency" and then the agency sells the terminal to the customer.