1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff, a business entity that runs the wholesale and retail business in B’s trade name, supplied 5,220,215,760 won of the sales price to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. at the second period of 2014 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”), and issued 84 copies of the tax invoice containing 5,379,313,960 won of the price of the copper scrap (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”). Upon filing a tax return for the second period of value added tax in 2014, the Plaintiff filed a tax return for the amount of KRW 5,379,313,960, including the price of the said copper scrap.

Around that time, the purchaser of copper scrap scrap of the instant tax invoice paid a value-added tax on the output tax amount stated in the relevant tax invoice according to the special case for payment of value-added tax by the purchaser of copper scrap under Article 106-9(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same).

On June 26, 2015, the Defendant revised the value-added tax base for the second period of value-added tax in 2014 by KRW 5,379,313,960, subtracting the sales amount of the said tax invoice from KRW 5,220,215,760, and issued a decision to revise the value-added tax (excluding KRW 104,404,404,315, respectively) to KRW 5,483,545, which reduces the value-added tax amount from KRW 5,379,313,960, and (hereinafter “decision to revise the instant tax reduction”).

On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the tax base and the amount of the tax (hereinafter “instant claim for correction”) with the intent to seek the refund of the remaining 417,617,261 won after deducting the value-added tax (including the additional tax for bad faith) that was corrected by reduction from the 2nd value-added tax of the Plaintiff’s previous 2014 (hereinafter “instant value-added tax”). However, on February 17, 2016, the Defendant cannot refund the value-added tax returned and paid by the Plaintiff, who is the actor, on the data, by means of the processed tax invoice.

"A" No. 2-2, hereinafter referred to as "A" to refuse to do so for reasons of this case.