1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 10, 2007, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name “B,” and thereafter, was engaged in the business of selling and receiving physical correction clothes (hereinafter “goods”) from C as the head of the branch office of a stock company C (hereinafter “C”).

B. On November 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) investigated and discovered that the Plaintiff omitted part of the purchase amount to C; (b) estimated sales amount equivalent to the omitted part of the purchase amount at the consumer price by item; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the revised value-added tax of KRW 101,870 for the first term portion of value-added tax, KRW 1,914,70 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2009, KRW 1,922,670 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2010, KRW 2,08,310 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”). (c)

On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on December 10, 2013, and the Defendant rendered a decision to re-examine whether the return on sales was omitted, and the Plaintiff estimated the omitted amount according to the gross profit rate (26.91%, 2009, and 27.23%, 2010) on March 20, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of the value-added tax from January 2, 2009 to February 2, 2010 as stated in the purport of the claim.

On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision of reinvestigation on April 20, 2015.

E. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the instant disposition that the instant disposition is justifiable as a result of the investigation of value-added tax according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal’s re-investigation

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number of branches), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s team leader and codin (hereinafter “the team leader, etc.”)

The plaintiff's code, which is the head of C's branch, can not purchase goods directly from C by the head of C's policy team, etc.