1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant Jongro Tax Office shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main office is the director of the tax office of Seodaemun.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff, as the representative of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 516 building C (the opening date: November 1, 2001), reported global income tax for 2004 and value-added tax for 2 years 2004, based on the purchase tax invoice 28 copies (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice of this case”), the purchase amount of KRW 571,312,00,000, total amount received from the corporation D (hereinafter “D”) shall be included in the necessary expenses, and the said global income tax and value-added tax shall be included in the purchase tax invoice 28 (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice of this case”).

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the purchase tax invoice of this case as the purchase tax invoice purchased from the data, and notified the Defendants of the taxation data on the basis of the above taxation data. On April 2, 2007, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax for the second period of 2,004 as KRW 82,217,50 (hereinafter “instant additional disposition”). On September 1, 2008, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office corrected and notified the purchase tax invoice of this case to KRW 318,428,340 by excluding the amount equivalent to the face value of the purchase tax invoice of this case from the necessary expenses in the amount equivalent to the face value of the purchase tax invoice of this case.

(hereinafter “instant imposition disposition of income tax”). C.

On July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant supplementary details and disposition, but the same year.

9. 20. The appeal was dismissed on November 7, 200. However, on December 28, 200, the plaintiff filed an objection after 90 days from the delivery of the notice of the supplementary statement and disposition of this case. D.

On November 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition imposing the income tax of this case, but was dismissed on December 23, 2009, and requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 2, 2009, but the same year.

4. The dismissal was 30.0

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1, 2, 5, 7.