1. On April 11, 2016, the Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of 2014 against the Plaintiff (including additional tax) and KRW 249,893,600 for the second term of 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax (hereinafter “instant purchase tax invoice”) received tax invoices of KRW 1,69,842,00 in total amount of KRW 1,69,842,00 (hereinafter “the instant purchase tax invoice”) from B (hereinafter “instant purchaser”) during the second period of 2014 from the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant purchaser”) and filed a tax invoice of KRW 19,970,00 in total amount of KRW 1,437,239,00 in the second period of 2014 from the Plaintiff Company, and filed a tax invoice of KRW 1,69,842,00 in the second period of 2013 in the second period of 2013 (hereinafter “instant seller”). In addition to the instant purchase account, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 19,970,00 (hereinafter “the instant transaction partner”). Under the premise that there was purchase and sale of value-added tax.

B. As a result of the tax investigation into the instant purchasing entity from July 23, 2015 to November 30, 2015, the head of the same orchard Tax Office with regard to the instant purchasing entity: (a) the actual operator D, E (hereinafter “actual operator”); (b) issued a processing tax invoice to the Plaintiff, F, G, and H during the taxable period from the first to the first period from July 2014, 2015; and (c) issued the processing tax invoice to the Plaintiff, F, G, and H during the taxable period from the first to the first period from 2015; and (d) “three subordinate companies” to the purchasing entity.

Considering that the processing tax invoice was received from the plaintiff and the representative director, the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the tax office having jurisdiction over the plaintiff, filed a complaint.

C. As a result of the investigation conducted with respect to the transaction order of the instant seller from July 22, 2014 to August 28, 2014, the head of the Suwon Tax Office: (a) deemed that the instant seller did not actually engage in the business attracting subscribers on the Internet, etc. and issued a tax invoice without a real transaction; (b) filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and the representative director L; and (c) related data to the Defendant, which is the Plaintiff’s tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.