1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. From June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal with the trade name of “C” in Article 1913 of the Seo-gu building 1913 in Gwangju-gu.

[2] The amount of KRW 247,731,06, 137, 340 won in total of KRW 121,974, 474, 480 won in 2009, KRW 247,731,300 in 2010, KRW 167,674,730 in 289, KRW 247,731,306, 137, 340 in 2010 in 167,674,090 in total of KRW 1,421,542,730 in 209.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,421,542,730 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from D (Representative: Representative) and F (Representative: G) (hereinafter “the instant transaction parties”) for the taxable period of value-added tax from the second to the second period from 2009 to the second period from 2010. The Plaintiff actually supplied the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff was not the instant transaction parties.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount according to the instant tax invoice from the Defendant and reported the value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period, and also reported the global income tax for 2010 by including the supply value according to the first and second tax invoice for the first period in the necessary expenses.

C. On April 9, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the “supplier” column of the instant tax invoice contains the instant transaction partners, but the actual supplier is H, and the instant tax invoice constitutes a case where the requisite entry items are different from the fact, and thus, the instant tax invoice was imposed and collected KRW 23,476,220 for the second period, 209, 209, which was calculated by deducting the amount of value-added tax returned and paid by the Plaintiff from the value-added tax calculated by deducting the amount of value-added tax returned and paid to the Plaintiff, and KRW 190,62,770 for the first period, 200, and KRW 30,841,960 for the second period, 2010, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) d.

The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an objection on March 2013.