1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 4, 198 to December 31, 1999, the Plaintiff’s real estate purchase 1) operated B, a corporation operating synthetic resin manufacturing business, etc. from May 4, 198 to December 31, 199. 2) On August 16, 1999, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s business for the real estate lease business (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name called “Dsports Center” that covers the third floor of Yeonsu-gu Incheon apartment complex (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On August 19, 199, the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration was completed under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant real estate.

B. On September 17, 1999, the Defendant closed the instant business, upon receiving an early refund report on the value-added tax on the building portion following the purchase of the instant real estate from E who represented the Plaintiff, and on October 9, 1999, refunded the value-added tax of KRW 124,709,180 to the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff. On October 31, 1999, the Defendant reported the closure of business on October 31, 199.

C. On June 15, 2004, the Defendant issued a correction notice on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and commenced the instant business, but closed on October 31, 1999 and did not pay the value-added tax on the pertinent building, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction notice of KRW 240,065,176 (including additional tax 115,358,01) for the second term portion of value-added tax in 199.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap's 2, 3, 4, 7, and Eul's 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the disposition of this case is null and void for the following reasons, and thus, the plaintiff seeks nullification of such disposition.

(Plaintiff asserted the five-year extinctive prescription since the imposition of value-added tax on June 19, 2013 with the statement of the complaint filed on June 19, 2013, but withdrawn the said claim with the statement of the preparatory document written on October 28, 2013, and thus, it does not separately determine this part). Defendant 1 is the Defendant.