1. On September 2, 2016, the Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 12,324,950, and September 5, 2016, against Plaintiff limited liability companies A.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are companies engaged in the business of manufacturing machinery, vessel parts, etc. in Yong-nam Cancer C.

B. The Plaintiffs received each one of the purchase tax invoices as listed below (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from a limited company D (hereinafter “D”) in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2014, and subsequently deducted the relevant amount as an input tax amount and included the value-added tax and the corporate tax in the calculation of deductible expenses.

On February 6, 2014, the supply value of the goods as of the date on which the supplier was supplied (won) 8,232,50-H-be (200 x 250 x12 x 10 x 10 x 150 x 150 x x 10 m) 13,232,50 H-be (200 x 100 x 10 x 10 m) 8,176,50 H-be (250 x125 x 12 m) 15,904,00 H-be (250 x 250 x 10 x 12m) 29,920,000 total 75,967,400 on poppy and processing on March 31, 2014 and 301,2560

C. From September 14, 2015 to October 18, 2015, the Defendant investigated D, and deemed the supply value of each of the instant tax invoices as processing expenses, and deducted the relevant input tax amount and excluded necessary expenses. The Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff-limited company (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) of KRW 12,324,950 of the value-added tax of September 2, 2014 and KRW 11,829,640 of the corporate tax of September 5, 2014 and KRW 15,214 of the Plaintiff-limited company (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) to the Plaintiff-limited company (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the business year of September 2, 2014, and the corporate tax of KRW 15,213,370 of the value-added tax of KRW 14,370 of the year 2014; and the corporate tax of KRW 14,208,96,90 of the May 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions" in the imposition of the above value-added tax and corporate tax against the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 8, 2017, and the Tax Tribunal re-examines whether the plaintiff A was actually supplied with the H-be and the plaintiff B was actually paid for the stoppy cutting and processing services, thereby making the tax base and the tax amount corrected according to the results, and the remaining appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.