1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who is engaged in the automobile mutual aid software development business in Suwon-si B, Suwon-si. The Plaintiff deducted the Defendant from the input tax amount of KRW 94,453,00 in total of the supply value of the tax invoice issued in the name of D (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) during the taxable period from February 2, 201 to December 2, 201, when filing a value-added tax return during the taxable period from February 2, 2010 to December 2, 2011 (=20,130,000 won for the second period of 20,130,000 won for the first period of 20,153,000 won for the second period of 20,000 won for the second period of 20,170,000 won

B. The Defendant determined that the service amounting to KRW 94,453,00 in total of the supply value of the instant tax invoice (hereinafter “instant service”) was not supplied by D as indicated in the said tax invoice, but supplied by F or G.

Accordingly, on February 24, 2014, the Defendant did not recognize the deduction of the input tax amount on the grounds that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of each of the KRW 3,868,180 for the second term portion of value-added tax, KRW 6,564,119 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 7,095,645 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on March 26, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the said request on December 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff actually traded with D as stated in the tax invoice of this case, and thus, the tax invoice of this case does not constitute a different tax invoice from the facts.

B. Determination 1) The former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013).