1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 20, 2009 to June 30, 201, C engaged in a furniture manufacturing business (hereinafter “instant business entity”) with the location of Macheon-si B as the seat of Macheon-si was registered as the Plaintiff by the business entity.

B. The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return from the second half to the first half of 2009, and the Defendant did not pay the value-added tax to the Plaintiff, and thus, imposed a value-added tax collection and additional tax as listed below.

The details of imposition of value-added tax and additional tax shall be imposed on March 8, 2010, the amount of the imposition of additional tax for the period of temporary attribution of the value-added tax, as of March 8, 2010, 376,230 of the Disposition No. 2 of this case as of April 1, 2010, 375,307, 122 of the Disposition No. 4 of this case as of December 2, 2010, 196, 376,230 of the Disposition No. 2 of this case as of April 1, 2010, 200, 2005, 56,30,307, 122 of the Disposition No. 4 of this case as of December 2, 2010, 201; 1, 275,830, 16, 16, 2011.

C. On August 6, 2015, which was after the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant revoked ex officio the instant disposition on August 6, 2015, and accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn the part regarding the instant disposition No. 6 among the instant lawsuit.

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case" except for the disposition No. 6 of this case which was withdrawn). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10 (including branch numbers for which the number is available), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendant’s defense of this case’s collection of value-added tax is not affected by the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations. Thus, the Defendant’s defense of this case’s collection of value-added tax has no interest

On the other hand, if the service of the notice of tax payment as to the taxation disposition violates the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes and is unlawful, such service has not become effective, and the taxation disposition is invalid.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3909 delivered on August 22, 1995). The collection disposition also becomes effective when the service is unlawful.