1. On September 10, 2013, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the second term portion of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was engaged in the non-ferrous metal manufacturing business with the trade name “C” in Silung-si B.

B. From August 2010 to November 2010, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to KRW 295,408,200 in total on 14 occasions from E engaging in the business of collecting and selling non-ferrous metals, etc. from around 2010 to around 2010, the Plaintiff deducted the said input tax amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the second period of February 2010, and then appropriated the said purchase amount as necessary expenses at the time of filing the return of global income tax in 2010.

C. On September 10, 2013, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 5,409,700, by excluding the input tax amount on the said tax invoice from the deductible amount, which was 5,409,700. On the same ground, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant, on September 10, 2013, issued a revised notice to the Plaintiff by adding the above purchase amount to KRW 6,498,70 from the global income tax for the year 2010, by applying the additional tax on September 10, 2013.

(hereinafter “each taxation of this case”) D.

The plaintiff appealed to the appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on August 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff transferred the purchase price with the actual closure of Dong, etc. supplied by E, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. 2) Even if not, the Plaintiff was well aware of the G, who is the F, as a figure of E, and was believed to be the purchaser of the waste agreement, because the transporter was E and G in the guidance chart.