1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who had been engaged in construction, design, waterproof construction business, etc. with the trade name “B” from April 22, 2003 to August 31, 201.

B. The Defendant: (a) provided D New Construction Site located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul in Seoul in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2006 and received 81,000,000 won (including value-added tax; (b) purely paid amount of KRW 73,636,364; and (c) omitted in the return of value-added tax for the pertinent period; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 12,817,080,080, which was the value-added tax for the second taxable year of 2006, reflecting the above amount in the tax base, based on the tax base.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the said request was dismissed on July 20, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the key issue amount of this case, the Plaintiff supplied E with Tail and sanitary instrument, and prepared a trading list with the sum of KRW 60,876,000 on August 17, 2006, which is the total amount of KRW 17,610,000, as it was merely a fact that the Plaintiff provided others, such as F, and received and delivered money from E on behalf of the Plaintiff, as it did not omitting sales. (2) Of the key issue amount of this case’s assertion as to the portion exceeding the amount under the above trading list, the portion exceeding the amount under the above trading list is not the price for goods or services provided to E in relation to the said new construction site, but because the Plaintiff’s husband, the Plaintiff’s husband, is a separate individual claim amount held in the above E, and thus, it is not an omission in sales.

B. Judgment 1 of this case