1. On July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam-gu Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 3,100,691, which was imposed on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since the Plaintiff started the business with the trade name, “B Yangpy Store” on May 1, 1974 (hereinafter “instant double-class store”), the Plaintiff has operated the above double-class store on the first floor of D hotel located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from November 30, 2004 to then.

B. From March 2, 2010 to April 14, 2010, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s business place and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s business place (including additional tax 6,826,097) imposed the global income tax of KRW 16,257,190 (including additional tax 13,086,036,036), and the global income tax of KRW 36,257,190 (including additional tax 13,086,036), on July 1, 2010.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 2010, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 6,570,190 (including the additional tax of KRW 3,100,691), the value-added tax of KRW 14,491,060 (including the additional tax of KRW 6,210,178), the value-added tax of KRW 10,433,270 (including the additional tax of KRW 4,259,818), the value-added tax of KRW 18,202,090 (including the additional tax of KRW 6,863,893), the value-added tax of KRW 18,208 on KRW 208.

(hereinafter above imposition of global income tax and value added tax are collectively referred to as “instant imposition disposition”). D.

On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s sales amount calculated by the Defendants includes the part of sales sold to customers by E, not the Plaintiff’s sales.