1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 29, 2011, D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the construction of Han-style Building on the land outside the Seoul-gun, the Seoul-gun, and the construction amount of the construction amount of KRW 1.1 billion (hereinafter “instant construction”). On November 5, 2011, D changed a contractor from G to C, and increased the construction amount of the construction amount of KRW 1.2 billion on December 21, 201.

B. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with an industrial company and a subcontractor on the electrical, telecommunication, and fire-fighting parts of the instant construction, with the contract amount of KRW 30 million, on behalf of the said subcontractor, and entered into a subcontract with B (representative C) on November 5, 201, with the subcontractor as to the hanok Construction Works among the instant construction works, with the contract amount of KRW 1 billion and KRW 6.5 million.

C. In the second half of 2011, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 1,50,000,000 in total value to I (representative C) who is an individual entrepreneur in relation to the instant construction project, and received from B a tax invoice of KRW 915,000,000 in total value, and a tax invoice of KRW 30,000,000 in total value from the industry instead of a stock company.

On May 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 29,400,000 on the ground that each of the above tax invoices was issued or received without real transaction because the Plaintiff was merely the nominal lender and the actual contractor D. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 23, and 32 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was practically involved in the construction of this case, and thus the plaintiff has lent the construction business name to D, or issued each of the above tax invoices without real transactions.