1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the land of 2,891.2 square meters in the Dong-gu, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and 1,178 square meters in operation of the above ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”), 1,047.14 square meters in lots, and 3,862,464,00 square meters in lots, and 552,536,536,000 won in total, and 4,415,63,630,000 won in each building and the cost of removal, and filed an early refund of value-added tax for the first period of 2015.

Around that time, the Defendant rendered a refund decision in accordance with the above declaration.

B. From March 2, 2016 to March 8, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff removed the instant building and newly built the instant building on the relevant site as a result of the Plaintiff’s on-site verification with respect to the refund from March 2, 2016, and deemed that the value-added tax on the purchase price and the cost of removal of the instant building as the input tax amount related to the instant land is deemed as the input tax amount related to the instant land, and accordingly, issued a revised notification to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) the value-added tax on the first half-year value-added tax for the pertinent land was deducted pursuant to Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 80(2)

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on November 15, 2016 on August 26, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on February 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 under Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 80 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should be the input tax amount related to “capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of land”. The Plaintiff removed the instant building and the building on its job.