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 juristic person established on January 11, 1983 for the purpose of construction business (construction business of hardware, steel structure, painting, steel materials installation, roof board construction business).

B. From 2007 to 2012, the Plaintiff received 71 copies of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 11,295,805,400 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from B (business registration number C, business operator D, hereinafter “new B”).

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice while knowing that the nominal owner of the new B and the actual business owner are different, and notified the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, of the taxation data. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the total value-added tax (including penalty tax for unfair underreporting) for the second period between 2007 and 2012, which was calculated by undeductible the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice with respect to the Plaintiff, and for the second period between 2007 and 2012, the sum of each value-added tax for the second period between 2007 and 205,135,800 (including penalty tax for unfair underreporting) and the eligible evidence.

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

On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed against the initial disposition and filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office. On December 12, 2014, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office revoked the imposition of value-added tax for the second period from 2007 to 1 year 2009 and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

E. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal seeking the revocation of the remaining part of the original disposition as described in the said paragraph, and the Tax Tribunal erred in applying an unfair under-reported additional tax in the imposition of the value-added tax on August 18, 2015. As such, it is erroneous for the Tax Tribunal to rectify the tax amount by applying the general under-reported additional tax and dismiss the remainder of the appeal.