1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who runs the business of October 1, 2007 and runs the wholesale and retail business and the scrap metal processing business, etc. with the trade name of “C” after moving his/her place of business in Jinhae-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, on August 30, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 52,481,00 in supply price during the 1st taxable period of the value-added tax in 2012 from E engaging in wholesale and retail business in the name of “D,” and purchased tax invoices of KRW 256,57,00 in the supply price during the 2nd taxable period of the value-added tax in 2012 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). The Defendant filed a return for each value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount according to each tax invoice from the output tax amount for each taxable period.

C. However, as a result of the tax investigation, the director of the North Busan District Tax Office identified E as a disguised business operator who issued a processed tax invoice without real transactions (so-called “materials”) and notified the Defendant of E’s taxation data.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not regard the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact, and did not recognize the deduction of the said input tax amount, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of value-added tax of KRW 9,187,320 (including additional tax of KRW 3,939,220) on December 10, 2012, and value-added tax of KRW 43,207,550 (including additional tax of KRW 17,549,860) on December 1, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in total). E

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 13, 2014, but the claim was dismissed on April 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition on the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked on the following grounds.

1 The Plaintiff is equivalent to KRW 309,058,00,000 of the supply value from E running D from June 1, 2012 to October 20, 2012.