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, a corporation established on September 25, 2009 for the purpose of corporate management consulting, etc., received the purchase tax invoices of KRW 842,590,740 (hereinafter “purchase tax invoices of this case”) in total amount of KRW 842,59,740 (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoices of this case”) from Company B during the first quarter of value added tax in 2012, and received the purchase tax invoices of KRW 842,59,740 (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoices of this case”), and issued the sales tax invoices of KRW 851,84,030 (hereinafter “the sales tax invoices of this case”) to two business partners, including Company C (hereinafter “C”) and D Co., Ltd. for the same period.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office of the taxation data that the purchase and sales tax invoice of this case constitutes false tax invoices received and issued without real transaction, and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the amount of value-added tax 32,960,240 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of Seoul Regional Tax Office for the first term of August 1, 2014

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on April 15, 2015.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s actual transaction, such as the supply of waste boops from B and supply them to C and D (hereinafter “instant transaction”).

(2) As the Plaintiff received and delivered tax invoices lawfully, the instant purchase and sales tax invoices are not true, and the instant disposition of the instant case on a different premise is unlawful even if the instant transaction was not a processing transaction. (2) Even if B supplied non-processed materials and used the so-called wide-scale carbon company and signboard company while selling them, the Plaintiff is so identical.