The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name “C” in the Si interesting City, with the main business of non-ferrous metal retail business as its main business, and filed a value-added tax return for the taxable period from No. 1 to No. 2016 for the first taxable period from No. 2015 to No. 2016.

(Unit) Division: (1) on January 2015, 2015, February 2015, 2016, 19,000 of the output tax amount of 02,00,000,319,000,000 of the output tax amount of 4,498,000,000 input tax amount of 043,000,292,000,000 for 4,73,000,73,000 (Refund) tax amount of 0,000,000,000 for 18,000,000,000,63,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s second period from February 2, 2015 to the second period from 2016, the Director of the Regional Tax Office determined that the above portion constitutes a false tax invoice received by the Plaintiff for the aforementioned period as indicated in the table below.

The former subdivision (unit: million won) 5,859 10% 3,7666 97% 2,197 100% 2,200% 2,200% 420% 4107% 41,00% 41,200% on January 1, 2016 1, 3199 4427% 84297% 835 100% on February 4, 2016 3,283 1,36210% on 3,497% on 1,362,20% on 1,364% on 2016 on the aggregate of the input tax amount, 1,525,426 won on the Plaintiff, and 394% on the amendment resolution by the Defendant as follows.

(1) The auditor of the National Tax Service, the auditor of the National Tax Service, the auditor of the National Tax Service, and the auditor of the National Tax Service, in the premise that (i) the purchase tax amount (i) (ii) the additional tax amount to be paid after deduction (iv) (i) the purchase tax amount (iii) 0 1,525,426,68,631,246, 17,952, 494, 86,583, 740, 35, 222, 536, 34, 934, 136, was erroneous to refund the value-added tax paid by the purchaser (contractor) to the plaintiff.