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 January 20, 2005 to November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who closed down his/her business with the trade name “C” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiff received 30 copies of purchase tax invoices issued by Nonparty D as a limited liability company E (hereinafter “E”) during the taxable period of value-added tax from the first half to the second half of the year 2010 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”), and paid value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. However, as a result of the tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages by the director of the Central District Tax Office, it was revealed that the Plaintiff was not E, but F. The Defendant issued a tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014 on the ground that the instant tax invoice was “illegal tax invoices” written differently between the supplier and the actual supplier on the relevant tax invoice, and that the amount of value-added tax was 1,050,580,010, 1,019,360, 2010, 1,076, 890, 2011, 1,020,570, and 620,090,090, and 367,390 won for the period of February 1, 2012, 201, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 10, 2014 on September 1, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages, etc. under the tax invoice of this case in the arm's length price and paid in full the price including value added tax, and did not obtain any additional profit, and did not know at all about the fact that the supplier in the tax invoice delivered D differs from the actual one.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful and thus should be revoked.

(b) the attached Form of the relevant statute;