1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur operating a “C pharmacy” in Songpa-gu Seoul, and is concurrently running a taxable business and a tax-free business under the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. The Defendant deemed that the amount of KRW 168,90,690 (hereinafter “the instant money”) deposited in the Plaintiff’s business account was omitted from the cash sales subject to value-added tax, and deemed that the amount of KRW 13,846,926, such as welfare expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, and personnel expenses, among necessary expenses, was excessive and excluded from the necessary expenses. On March 1, 2017, the Defendant imposed a value-added tax of KRW 12,207,480 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of KRW 12,207,480 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of KRW 15,650,570 (including additional taxes) for the second half year of 2014, global income tax of KRW 98,321,920 (including additional taxes) for the year 2014.

C. On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against it. On July 26, 2017, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses of KRW 6,581,000 paid to D shall be included in the necessary expenses, and the Plaintiff’s global income tax base and tax amount for the year 2014 shall be corrected, and the remainder of the appeal shall be dismissed.”

Accordingly, on August 16, 2017, the Defendant revised the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax for the year 2014 to KRW 95,621,146.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) : (a) The imposition of global income tax, value-added tax, and additional tax after a reduction or correction is collectively referred to; (b) the grounds for recognition do not dispute; (c) the entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5,

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff borrowed cash from husband E from time to time and used it as operating funds whenever the C pharmacy operation funds are insufficient, and the instant money is that the Plaintiff borrowed from E as above.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is to consider the money of this case as an omission of sales subject to value added tax.