1. The Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 51,081,380 (including additional taxes) for the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013 and KRW 51,081 for the second period of value-added tax for the Plaintiff on September 2, 2011.

1. On October 21, 201, the unit price of the item (g) quantity (won/g) quantity (won) on the date on which the particulars of the disposition are recorded: 1,124 1,00,000 112,400,000 November 11, 201, as of November 201, 201, the sum of 1,169 150,000 175,350,000 250,000 ;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the wholesale business of machinery tools, the wholesale business of non-metallic metals wholesale business and the trade business, and the Plaintiff traded with B (hereinafter “B”) during the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable year of the 2011 value added tax and the corporate tax return was completed by deducting the pertinent amount as input tax amount after deducting the pertinent amount from the input tax amount.

B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from September 20, 2012 to October 24, 2012 (hereinafter “the first tax investigation”) and determined that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in the instant tax invoice and B (hereinafter “B”) was a normal transaction.

C. However, as a result of the investigation by item of value-added tax on B from August 24, 2012 to December 10, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed B to fall under the category of materials that received tax invoices without real transactions during the second and the first half of 2011, and filed a complaint with the investigative agency that is the representative director thereof; (b) determined the instant tax invoice as a processed tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the relevant taxation data on December 28, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant from May 30, 2013 to the same year.

8. Until August, 8, the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation again against the Plaintiff (an investigation on the part relating to trade order; hereinafter “the second tax investigation”), and as a result, the Plaintiff deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued by B, other than the actual supplier, even though the Plaintiff was supplied with non-material suppliers.