1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who jointly runs food, cosmetics, and miscellaneous wholesale business in the name of “D” in Seoul Central District Office C and C, 3rd floor 29, and became a person subject to the duty to issue electronic tax invoices in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2013, as the value of goods and services at the pertinent place of business in 2012 exceeds KRW 1,031,410,600.

B. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified the penalty tax amounting to KRW 8,976,547 on the Plaintiff and B, respectively, pursuant to Article 60(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff and B did not issue an electronic tax invoice even if they were to be issued an electronic tax invoice for the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2013;

(Plaintiff and B are joint entrepreneurs under Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The notice of imposition and collection of additional tax was served on September 26, 2014 and each of them was served on the Plaintiff and B.

C. On February 9, 2015, B filed a civil petition for grievance with the Defendant for the revocation of the disposition imposing additional tax, but the Defendant rejected the petition.

B On March 23, 2015, the Tax Tribunal filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing additional tax, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 22, 2015 on the ground that the period of appeal was elapsed.

E. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) issued a tax invoice on a hand-on basis during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2013; and (b) reported and paid value-added tax amounting to KRW 21,441,628; and (c) merely imposed penalty tax on the ground that the electronic tax invoice was not issued; and (d) it

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s main defense is the safety defense.