1. The value-added tax of 2 March 201, 201, set forth in [Attachment 1] No. 1 set forth by the head of the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Tax Office against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A and B are siblingss, and Plaintiff C is the sculptures of Plaintiff A and B, and the Plaintiffs, from February 10, 1999, operate the gas station with the trade name of “E gas station” from Hanam-si from February 10, 199.

B. The Plaintiffs received each of the tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) as indicated below from the F and G (hereinafter “stock company” in the name of the corporation during the period of the value-added tax taxable period of February 2, 2011 and January 2012, 201, and received each of the following tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). At the time of filing a value-added tax return for each taxable period, the Plaintiffs deducted the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount, and included it in the necessary expenses.

The sum of the supply values of transaction parties in the taxable period Nos. 1, 201 F 300,709,086 won 201 KRW 1,088,217,451 won 3 G 1,084,200,000 won in total 1,583,126,537

C. From July 5, 2016 to August 15, 2016, the head of the Defendant Gyeonggi-gu Tax Office conducted an investigation, such as value-added tax, etc. (hereinafter “tax investigation of this case”) with the investigation period as “from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012” as “from June 30, 2012,” and the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the actual supplier of oil and the supplier on the tax invoice (the transaction partner of this case) are different, thereby deducting the amount of the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount from the input tax amount on the ground that the Plaintiffs deducted the amount of the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount as the input tax amount by an unfair method, and notified the Plaintiffs of the correction of the value-added tax for the two years and January 2, 2012, as indicated in [Attachment 1] 1, 2011

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of value-added tax of this case"

In addition, the Defendants recognized the purchase cost of the instant tax invoice as necessary expenses, but reverted to the Plaintiffs in the year 201 and 2012, as shown in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 3 and 4.