1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In February 2007, the Plaintiff supplied a national housing scale apartment building (hereinafter “instant apartment building”) to a certain household in the Sungnam-do District B-1 block within the Value-Added Tax period, and performed a balcony expansion work upon the choice of buyers (hereinafter “instant service”).

B. The Plaintiff determined that the supply of the instant service constitutes services incidental to the supply of the instant apartment that is exempt from value-added tax, and declared the value-added tax exemption for the instant service.

C. However, the Defendant determined that the instant service was supplied separately from the supply of the instant apartment, and thus constitutes subject to value-added tax, and imposed on the Plaintiff on January 9, 2013 the value-added tax for the second period of 2007 (18,279,905 won, additional tax for non-issuance of the tax invoice, 3,65,981 won, under-reported additional tax of 1,827,90 won, and penalty tax of 9,925,988 won, under-reported additional tax of 1,827,90 won, and penalty of 9,925,988 won).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposing additional tax is legitimate among the dispositions in this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is a justifiable ground for the taxpayer's failure to perform his/her legal obligation under Article 48 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which does not impose an additional tax; for a considerable period of time, there was a decision that the value-added tax was not imposed on the balcony expansion service; the Tax Tribunal also made a decision that the balcony expansion service constitutes an object of value-added tax exemption because it is naturally incidental to the supply of the apartment house on the national housing scale; and the lower court's view was whatever.