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 October 15, 2004, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business, etc. of scrap iron on the ground of the 980-52 ground in the Hanhae-si, Kimhae-si from October 15, 2004 to the date.

B. From B, which introduced that the Plaintiff himself/herself is engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “A,” the Plaintiff was issued four copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 925,287,740, total supply value of KRW 365,196,90 on March 31, 201, KRW 391,791,560 on April 30, 201, KRW 127,920,480 on May 31, 201, and KRW 40,378,80 on June 30, 201, and KRW 127,920,480 on June 30, 201 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax invoice”).

C. After that, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the value-added tax for the first period of 201, which deducted the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice, and the corporate tax which included the said input tax amount in deductible expenses.

However, the head of Ulsan District Tax Office identified B as a disguised business operator who issued false tax invoices without real transactions (so-called "data") as a result of a tax investigation, and notified the Defendant of B of the taxation data on the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, on July 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and did not recognize the deduction of the said input tax amount, and on July 1, 2013, issued a correction and notice of the amount of value-added tax of KRW 167,671,250 (including additional tax) and corporate tax of KRW 20,356,310 (additional tax for lack of evidence) for the business year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on December 11, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is based on the following grounds.