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 an individual entrepreneur who operates a gas station under the trade name “C gas station” in Ansan-si B.

B. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 116,060,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from D (hereinafter “the instant transaction partner”) during the period of one taxable year of the value-added tax in 2009, and deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, thereby filing a value-added tax return and paying the value-added tax.

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that D had issued a processing tax invoice without a real transaction during the taxable period from February 2, 2008 to February 2, 2009, as a result of the investigation of a suspected criminal suspect against the transaction partner of the instant case, and notified the Defendant thereof.

Accordingly, on November 15, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 20,663,950 of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2009 on the grounds that the supplier did not deduct the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount, deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice. On the same day, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,321,200 of the global income tax for the global income tax for the year 209

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "disposition of this case"). (e)

On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on April 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant tax invoice was prepared by reflecting the details of the actual transaction, and thus, it is not a false tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful. 2) Even if it is assumed that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a party to the transaction, and thus, knew of the fact that it was nominal.