1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 25, 2009 to June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 50,468,398 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total from D (hereinafter “D”) during the taxable period of the value-added tax in 2013 to 2014, from the business entity operating the Smarket under the trade name of “C” from the business entity who operated the Smarket in the business territory of Yeongdeungpo-gu B and 105, and by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, the Plaintiff filed a return on and pays the value-added tax from the output tax amount.

The supply value in the taxable period (cost) of January 2013, 2012,98,987,819, 13,400,504 February 16, 2014, 50,46,468,398 (unit: Won) of the total amount of 16,043,887, 2014

B. However, the Defendant calculated the amount of taxation by denying the deduction of the pertinent input tax amount on the grounds that the instant tax invoice constitutes “illegal tax invoice” written in falsity without a real transaction. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 1,488,420 for the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016, value-added tax of KRW 2,346,40 for the first year of 2013, value-added tax of KRW 2,348,190 for the second year of 2013, value-added tax of KRW 2,348,190 for the first year of 2014, value-added tax for the second year of 2,72,850 for the second year of 2014,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) c by referring to each of the above taxation dispositions.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review on April 15, 2016, but the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on June 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that supplied liquor to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “E”) stated that “E and D were affiliated with each other, and thus there is no separate problem” against the Plaintiff who asked the reasons why the tax invoice is issued in the name of “D” rather than E.