1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron and steel scoo in the trade name of “C” in Sil interest city B.

The Plaintiff reported the tax base amount of the value-added tax for the first term portion of 2015 as KRW 29,233,88,310 in relation to the said workplace, and the tax amount to be paid as KRW 2,921,924,814 (the sales tax amount of KRW 2,923,38,831 - the input tax amount of KRW 1,365,817 - the deduction and tax amount of KRW 98,200 in relation to the said workplace.

B. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to rectify the amount of KRW 2,916,81,062 as the tax base of value-added tax, the output tax amount, and the tax amount to be paid for special cases related to the purchaser already paid for, on the grounds that the Plaintiff issued the processed tax invoice concerning the transaction (hereinafter “instant transaction”) during the first taxable period in 2015 to the transaction partner and committed an act in data (hereinafter “decision to rectify the instant reduction”).

C. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction (hereinafter “instant request for correction”) with the purport to seek refund of the amount of tax equivalent to the value-added tax already paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., value-added tax 2,921,924,810 won (i.e., value-added tax paid 2,921,924,81,900 won for failure to pay tax invoices; hereinafter “instant amount of tax in dispute”) on the grounds that the instant transaction was the most recent transaction to the Defendant, but the Defendant issued a notification of refusal of the said request on March 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notification of refusal”).

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant decision of reduction, and the Plaintiff’s ancillary disposition, on the grounds that the instant transaction was not the most active transaction.

Although the Tax Tribunal filed an administrative appeal seeking refund of value-added tax already paid for the same reason as stated in the Paragraph, the said decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant transaction constitutes a fictitious transaction on December 23, 2016 and the said decision to dismiss the said decision is lawful.