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. The Plaintiff collected and processed steel scrap, the main raw materials of the steel industry, and supplied them to manufacturing companies, such as steel products, etc., such as Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern steel”), and filed a value-added tax return by deducting each tax invoice listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) stating that the steel was supplied from A (trade name: B), C (D) and E (trade name: F; hereinafter “F”) during the period of the value-added tax on the first and second taxable years of the value-added tax in 2011, and then deducting the input tax amount therefrom.

B. From September 7, 2015 to October 19, 2015, the head of Ulsan District Tax Office deemed that the results of the tax investigation with the Plaintiff were different from the facts of the supplier of the instant tax invoice, and notified the Defendant. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, which corrected and notified the amount of value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax 66,790 won, the first term portion of value-added tax 25,985,690 won, and value-added tax 41,977,030 won for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2011.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on March 10, 2016 on January 21, 2016, but was dismissed on September 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9-1, 22-25, 43-46, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff supplied the scrap metal with the direct payment transaction from the instant purchasing entity (the Plaintiff paid the price to the instant purchasing entity if the instant purchasing entity immediately supplied the goods to the Hyundai Steel), and paid the price accordingly. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a different tax invoice from the fact.

Even if the purchaser of this case is a disguised business operator, the plaintiff is guilty of his name.