1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 12, 2013, the director of the competent regional tax office, against the Plaintiff, on December 12, 2013 by the head of the competent regional tax office.

1. The circumstances leading to the disposition are companies engaged in manufacturing, processing, and selling ready-mixeds, slates, aggregates, reciting concretes, and other cements, and were established on June 12, 2013 by investing 100% of cement cement companies, an affiliate to the same group (hereinafter referred to as “Dong cement”).

On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the acquisition of business by transfer of 120,000,000 won (the acquisition price of August 5, 2013 was changed to 117,00,000,000 won) only for the portion of the business related to “the file manufacturing and supply business,” among the ready-mixed business, which was concurrently operated at the places of business in the ASEAN factory, the Hasan Factory, and the Haan Factory, the three places of business in the Hayang Factory, the holding company located in the same group (hereinafter referred to as “Dongyang”), which was located in the same group.

(2) On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of the input tax amount under the following table to the Defendants: (a) 6,468,472,879 won of value-added tax (the supply price of KRW 64,684,728,798 = the total purchase price of KRW 66,365,83,782 - General sales-related purchase price of KRW 1,681,154,984) from the same amount; and (b) on September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff additionally paid the input tax amount from the output tax amount to the Defendants by offsetting the claim for unjust enrichment; and (c) on September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for refund of the input tax amount under the following table to the Defendants: (a) the total value-added tax amount of KRW 25,942,239,439,639,394,386,386,38638

As a result of the investigation, the Defendants determined that the transfer rate of this case constitutes “transfer of business” under Article 10(8)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and refused the Plaintiff’s application for refund of value-added tax because they did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, while Defendant Asan Tax Office, like “B corrective disposition,” was the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013.