1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the first term of July 1, 2014 for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014, KRW 14,296,480 for the first term of 2012, and corporate tax for the year 2012 11,946.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff started a business with the trade name called the first limited liability company, green growth company, multi-family company, and the name of the company was changed to the name of the company as a limited liability company. From August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron and non-ferrous iron, etc., in Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Busan, 73-4.

B. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2012, the Plaintiff received two copies of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 77,736,300 (the supply price of KRW 75,661,500 as of January 31, 2012, and the tax invoice of KRW 2,074,80 as of February 29, 2012; hereinafter collectively referred to as “purchase tax invoice of this case”), and filed a value-added tax return after deducting the above input tax amount.

C. The director of the North Busan District Tax Office conducted an investigation related to transaction order on the representative B of the A company, and then accused B as data, and deemed the instant tax invoice as the processing tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 14,296,480 and KRW 11,946,510 of the corporate tax for the business year 2012, respectively, by deducting the input tax from deductible expenses and not including the corporate tax.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the objection on September 14, 2014.

After that, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 16, 2014, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for examination on February 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim was that the instant tax invoice was issued according to the actual transaction with the Company A, and even if the Company A was data, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact.