1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of 208 against the Plaintiff on May 11, 201, was 32,469,660 won, and the first term portion in January 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who operates a gas station under the trade name, “C gas station” from October 11, 2003 to Echeon-si B.

B. From February 2008 to January 201, 2010, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices equivalent to KRW 1,215,852,00 for the total supply price of KRW 47,00 for the second term portion in 2008, KRW 176,581,00 for the second term portion in 2009, KRW 420,781,000 for the second term portion in 209, KRW 571,436,00 for the second term in 2009, and KRW 47,054,00 for the first term portion in 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”). The Plaintiff paid a value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. From August 26, 2009 to January 14, 2010, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that D had issued a tax invoice without real transaction during the first and second taxable periods from August 26, 2009, and notified the Defendant of D of the result of the investigation.

Therefore, on May 11, 2011, the Defendant deemed each of the instant tax invoices as tax invoices different from the fact, did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, imposed an additional tax on global income tax, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 32,469,660 of the value-added tax for the second term of 2008, value-added tax for the second term of 2009, value-added tax for 75,088,320, value-added tax for the second term of 209, value-added tax for 98,819,470, value-added tax for the second term of 209, value-added tax for 7,81,520, global income tax for the first term of 208, and KRW 3,531,620, global income tax for the year 208, and KRW 19,84,340 for the

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "each disposition of this case"). (e)

On August 3, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 35, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant, while conducting a tax investigation with the plaintiff, shall be deemed to be value-added tax.