1. Corporate tax for the business year 20,95,290, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014, KRW 8,046,070, out of KRW 20,955,290.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On April 27, 2004, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., filed a return on and pay the value-added tax and corporate tax on the three-party tax base, based on the supply price of KRW 292,00,000,000, which was issued as an item by “all of the landscape view construction business” as an item, and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 59,930,000,000, issued from B, and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 59,930,000,000, issued by a business operator using the trade name of “C,” and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 277,40,00,000,

B. As a result of investigating the Plaintiff et al. as a suspicion of interference with bidding, the Taeak Police Station revealed that the Plaintiff, et al. issued a processed tax invoice in sequence without any transaction, thereby creating a false sales performance and thereby interfering with bidding through fraudulent means by participating in a high pressure construction project ordered by the Korea Power, and notified the result in the investigation.

C. Accordingly, the portion of KRW 80 million (including value-added tax) out of the instant tax invoice was actually traded between the Plaintiff and B, and as seen earlier by the Plaintiff, the third party tax invoice recognized each purchase tax invoice issued by B, etc. as false, as seen earlier by the Plaintiff.

On September 1, 2014, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 20,955,290 won on the Plaintiff for the business year 2010, and the value-added tax of 20,317,480 won for the second year of 2010.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on February 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key issue is the Plaintiff.