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 is a company that was established on October 11, 2010 and engaged in wholesale business, such as scrap iron and rain iron, in 434-98, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu.

B. The Plaintiff received three copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 43,688,600 (hereinafter “instant purchase amount”) in the second half period from A in 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and received the input tax deduction at the time of the return of value-added tax, and included the purchase amount in deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return.

C. From July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, the Defendant conducted a trade order-related investigation with A, and identified the said tax invoice as a disguised processing material. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from A as a false tax invoice and deducted the input tax amount by deeming it as a false tax invoice. In calculating the corporate tax amount, the Defendant added the purchase amount to deductible expenses for the first time of value-added tax on November 1, 2010, and additionally corrected and notified KRW 7,314,780 for the business year 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposition”) D. 7,314,780 won of corporate tax is imposed.

The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on December 18, 2012 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 19, 2013, but was dismissed on July 25, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff reported that he received from A is supplied with scrap metal from B (hereinafter “B”), and the Plaintiff and B receive the name of the supplier as A, and there is a real transaction between the Plaintiff and B.

Therefore, the purchase amount of this case is the cost that the plaintiff spent in relation to the business.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not have the substance of the transaction related to the tax invoice of this case.