1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that runs a wholesale and retail business of non-ferrous iron in the name of “B” from November 1, 2006.

B. In 2011, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) consisting of 488,741,150 of the supply value from D, which is registered as “C” in the first taxable period of the value-added tax. The Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount under the said tax invoice from the output tax amount, and filed the first taxable amount for the first taxable year of 201 with the Defendant.

C. As a result of the tax investigation, the head of the High Tax Office deemed the entire tax invoices arising from D’s trade names as false tax invoices without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

Accordingly, the Defendant, based on the foregoing taxation data, deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice by the supplier and deducted the relevant input tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 90,368,230 (including additional tax) for the first period of value-added tax in November 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 21, 2014. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff purchased scrap metal equivalent to the value of supply of the instant tax invoice from D and paid the price thereof. As such, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice. 2) Even if D is a disguised entrepreneur, the Plaintiff did not know it at the time of the transaction.

In addition, at the time of transaction, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care by confirming whether it is a normal business operator through D's business registration certificate, transportation vehicle, measurement certificate, account copy, etc.