1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a business operator running the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal in the Gyeongbuk-gun B, the Plaintiff, from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, received purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,631,149,000 in total of the supply values as follows, and filed a return on and pay the value-added tax to the Defendant, after deducting them from the output tax amount, from the output tax amount.

(2) Each of the above suppliers shall be deemed to have purchased each of the above "each of the above suppliers" and each of the above tax invoices. The supply price (each of the above tax invoices) for the purchase to vest in the first period D 2281,154,000 for the first period D 2281,154,000 for the purchase to vest in, 2010, 142,632,719,000 G Company 1142,632,00 for the second period 2011 for the second period E company 3182,719,000 for the second period 201 81,151,903,000 for the six companies 242,631,149,000 for the six companies

B. The Defendant notified of the result of the investigation on the data on each of the instant buyers, conducted an individual integrated investigation on the Plaintiff on June 28, 2012 to November 12, 2012, and subsequently deducted each of the instant input tax amounts on the grounds that each of the instant tax invoices was false, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 52,50,030, the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,500,030 on January 3, 2013; KRW 183,95,920,920 on Value-Added Tax of KRW 227,192,830 on Value-Added Tax of KRW 227,192,830 on the second of the year 2011; ② KRW 25,930,570 on the global income tax of KRW 2010 on the grounds that each of the instant tax invoices was false.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and requested a judgment on March 25, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on November 6, 2013.

Meanwhile, in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, which was filed against the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office (Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap684), the judgment of claimant was rendered on February 13, 2014 on the ground that "Gangdong cannot be deemed to have issued a tax invoice without any transaction of goods, and it cannot be deemed that it was issued."