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 June 11, 2010 to “B”, the Plaintiff engaged in a construction service business, such as construction design and interior, with the trade name of “B” (i.e., discontinuance of business on October 23, 2014), and (ii) entered into a construction contract for each of the five parcels of land, including Gyeonggi-do, Adong and B Dong (hereinafter “Adong building,” “B Dong building,” and the combination of the two are referred to as “instant building”) with the construction cost of KRW 220,00,000 ( separate value-added tax), total of KRW 440,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), and concluded a construction contract for each of the five parcels of land, including KRW 270,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 260,000,000, 2605,500 (excluding value-added tax), and each of the construction contract for KRW 260,500,00 (25).

(hereinafter referred to as the “new construction contract of this case”). B. The construction work of this case is the new construction work of this case.

On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 535,00,000 (A Dong building 270,000,000, B Dong building 265,000,000) with respect to the instant new construction contract, and issued a revised tax invoice of KRW 535,00,000 on December 30, 2013, with the grounds for revision as “cancellation of the contract.”

C. From October 6, 2015 to January 8, 2016, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the part of value-added tax on the instant newly issued construction contract with the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation that, in the instant newly issued construction contract, the tax invoice of KRW 535,00,000 for the original supply price was duly issued upon the completion of all the service provision and the construction cost, notwithstanding the tax invoice issued upon the completion of the service provision, the Plaintiff’s issuance of the tax invoice was deemed omitted, and thus, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation on January 11, 2016, deeming that the said amount was omitted.

On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to review the legality of the taxation before taxation, but received a non-adopted decision from the Defendant on April 11, 2016.

(e).