1. The “amount of notified tax” as stated in the attached Table [Attachment Table] that the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff on November 12, 2015 shall be the value-added tax.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From the first half to the first half of 2012, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 2,500,150,205 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on the aggregate of the supply values as indicated below, on the grounds that the Plaintiff supplied C(D) Laos and softs products (hereinafter “instant goods”).

Tax period supply value (won) 2, 44,905,5200 up to 2, 2012 up to 2, 2012 up to 564,430,750 up to 2, 2014 up to 551,683,600 up to 2, 2014 up to 2, 200,477,800 up to 2,500 up to 2,500,485,95 up to 2,50,150,150, 2050, 2050, 2050, 2050, 2014

B. Around October 2015, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and as a result, the person who actually received the instant goods from the Plaintiff was confirmed as E (hereinafter “E”) which is not the subsidiary of the Plaintiff, and the instant tax invoice issued by a person who is supplied with B other than E was notified of the taxation data related to the instant tax invoice to the Defendant on the ground that it constitutes a false tax invoice.

C. Accordingly, on November 12, 2015, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 50,003,003,000 in total of each of the value-added taxes (additional taxes in breach of tax invoices) indicated in the attached Table [Attachment] on the instant tax invoice.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 1, 2016.

March 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The actual transaction of the instant goods under the Plaintiff’s 1 tax invoice is not E, and thus, the transaction of goods under the said tax invoice is not a processing transaction, but a different tax invoice from the fact, stating B as the person receiving the said tax invoice.