1. On November 16, 2015, the Defendant’s first term portion of KRW 87,049,160, and the second term portion of KRW 67,117,610, respectively, against the Plaintiff in 2014.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, a mobile communications service provider and a mobile communications terminal device (hereinafter referred to as “terminal”), to purchase and sell a device to subscribers to mobile communications services, and to whom the Plaintiff was entrusted with the attracting and management of subscribers to mobile communications services from the case, and to which the Plaintiff purchased and sells the device.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff operated the device in such a way that it sells the device purchased from the case to the customer in installment and returns part of cash after one month.

In filing a return of the first and second value-added tax in 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return of the total amount of KRW 772,708,830 (the first period in 2014), 623,558,940 (the second period in 2014; the first and second cash payments in 2014; the second period in 2014; the second period in 2014; the first and second cash payments), which is the remainder after deducting the amount remaining after deducting the amount from the sales amount from the sales amount, as the accumulated interest rate in the sales amount of the terminal sales proceeds, as the tax base of each value-added tax (the second period in 2014).

From June 2, 2015 to September 11, 2015, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. From November 16, 2015 to November 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax of KRW 87,049,160 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of value-added tax of KRW 87,049,160 (including additional tax) for the second term portion of value-added tax of KRW 2014 for the Plaintiff on November 16, 2015, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s argument as to the lawfulness of the instant disposition and the purport of the entirety of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 1 through 14, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including each number), and the purport of the instant disposition is legitimate. The instant subsidy constitutes the amount of discount under Article 29(5)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, constitutes an amount of discount under Article 29(5)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, should be excluded from the value-added tax base.

As shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.