1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) received a contract for the construction of the housing site in the said project district (hereinafter “instant project district”); and (b) the construction of roads, landscaping, and water supply and drainage within the instant project district (hereinafter “instant construction”); and (c) the instant construction project is related to the construction of roads, landscaping, and water supply and drainage in the instant project district.

On the other hand, among the instant project districts, the housing construction sites that the EP corporation supplies for a fee include the parts supplied for the construction of “national housing” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Housing Act.

B. As a result of the review of the current status of payment of value-added tax on the national housing construction service project implemented by SP and improvement measures, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City concluded that the value-added tax corresponding to this portion is exempt because the national housing construction service exempt from value-added tax includes the portion corresponding to the ratio of the site area for national housing construction to the total supply area (hereinafter “ratio of the site for national housing construction”) among the services corresponding to the free supply area, such as roads, parks, and facility greenbelts provided outside the national housing complex (hereinafter “national housing construction service”). On August 2007, the value-added tax paid to SP as a result of the request for correction is to be refunded through the request for correction, and the housing construction service for which the amount equivalent to value-added tax has not yet been paid as the construction cost is to be withdrawn

C. Accordingly, in relation to the value-added tax from the second to the first period of 2004 in 2007, the Plaintiff paid or refunded the value-added tax through a revised return and request for correction, and from the second period of 2007 in 2007, the Plaintiff issued a “statement” to the Es.S. Corporation on the part that deemed the supply of duty-free services by calculating the above methods, and on the remainder.