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 was established on July 6, 2012 and engages in the manufacture, sale, etc. of electricity, electronic equipment, and parts.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax of KRW 1,296,826,723 as the total value of supply of a tax invoice issued to a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) upon reporting the second value-added tax in 2013; and the total value of supply of a tax invoice issued under the name of a stock company C (hereinafter “C”) as the input tax amount (hereinafter “the sum of each tax invoice issued under C and the Plaintiff’s name”) was KRW 1,283,361,314 as the input tax amount (hereinafter “the sum of each tax invoice issued under C and the Plaintiff’s name”).

C. From April 30, 2014 to June 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 50,248,360 for the second quarter of August 16, 2013 by applying the penalty tax in unfaithful on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was received without real transaction, and was received without real transaction, and was based on the fact that it was a tax invoice different from fact.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 18, 2014 upon filing an objection on August 27, 2014, seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on June 9, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Summary 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is Edstephal Lease Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Edstephal Lease”).

(2) The instant disposition based on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices was issued without the supply of goods is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff is the same as the Plaintiff.