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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from November 1, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was issued one tax invoice (OOO, input tax amount OOOO, hereinafter referred to as “the purchase tax invoice of this case”) pursuant to the purchase of 95 heavy vehicles from the Co., Ltd. BB (hereinafter referred to as “B”).

B. On October 25, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of value-added tax (i.e., the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the output tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount - the input tax amount .

C. However, on November 21, 2003, the head of Seocho District Tax Office determined that the purchase tax invoice in this case was a tax invoice for processing prepared and issued without any actual transaction, and thus, determined that the input tax amount was not deducted from the output tax amount, and thus, the head of Seocho District Tax Office returned the decision of correction that only the amount of the value-added tax refund is deducted from the amount of the Plaintiff’s application for the refund of the value-added tax, and only the amount of the OOOO (the additional tax for failing to be stated + the additional tax for failing to be reported) was refunded. At that time, the head of Seocho District Tax Office refunded the above OOO won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office imposed a non-suspect on the Plaintiff in relation to the purchase tax invoice of this case, and accordingly, it accepted the Plaintiff's petition and recognized that the Plaintiff actually purchased 95 vehicles from BB on July 1, 2003, and notified the Plaintiff in the Seocho Tax Office, but the Seocho Tax Office maintained the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition was null and void due to its significant and obvious illegality.

2) Therefore, without any legal cause, the Defendant is obligated to return the input tax amount on the purchase tax invoice of the instant case as unjust enrichment, since it gains profit equivalent to the total amount of the OOO Won and the additional tax amount for failure to file a return, thereby incurring loss equivalent to the Plaintiff’s equivalent amount.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff, both of which are AArenk Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Arenk”), BB, CCCrenk Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCCrenk”), and the Plaintiff, a company engaged in lrenk business, and as in the case of a regional sirenk, the company could not hold more than 500 vehicles under the provision, and thus, the company was engaged in joint business and managed the amount of revenue by vehicle and news work.

In addition, the plaintiff and BB are companies run by the most substantially the E.

2) On August 27, 2001, AArenk was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2001Had45 on August 27, 2001, and appointment of Dorenk lawyer was made by the trustee in bankruptcy. On August 27, 2001, 240 vehicles (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) were owned when preparing a list of claims and assets as of August 27, 2001.

3) On March 21, 2002, BB lent the name of the police officer under the name of the police officer, and entered into a sales contract with the trustee in bankruptcy of AArenk and AArenk's claims related to a specific asset, such as the instant vehicle, and claims related to a specific person, of AArenk, a bankruptcy company.

4) BB amended relevant laws and regulations to enable the permission of car rental business to be granted only when the vehicle is a new vehicle or when the vehicle is a heavy vehicle for less than one year, and thus, BB could not operate car rental business with the instant vehicle. During the first taxable period of 2002, BB sold to the used car sales, 91 vehicles during the second taxable period of 2002 and 149 vehicles during the second taxable period of 202. However, BB prepared and delivered a tax invoice for AAB to the said used car sales in the name of AArenk, the owner on the vehicle register.

5) On the other hand, on June 4, 2003, on the other hand, on the part of AArenk's bankruptcy trustee SD, BB, CCCrenk, and the Plaintiff agreed to issue a tax invoice to return the instant vehicle to its original state on July 1, 2003 and make a mutual agreement to issue a normal transaction tax return (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement") to the effect that the sale of the instant vehicle to the OE is again made by Arenkk for the car sales by the Arenk to the BB after selling the instant vehicle to the BB. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18093, May 2003>

Accordingly, as of July 1, 2003, BB prepared and issued a tax invoice stating that the Plaintiff sold 95 vehicles among the instant vehicles to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff sold 145 vehicles to the CCCene for the KRW 00,000, respectively. In addition, as of July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a tax invoice stating that the Plaintiff sold 95 vehicles to the AAene for the KRW 00,000, for the KRW 145 vehicles to the ACC as of July 1, 2003.

6) On December 4, 2006, Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office accepted a total of 443 vehicles, including the instant vehicles, from AArenkk, and issued a disposition of non-prosecution on the grounds that BB would have sold the remainder of 130 vehicles to CCCenek.

7) On October 2008, CCCT submitted a written petition to the Guro Tax Office on or around the basis of the above non-prosecution disposition. Accordingly, the head of the Guro tax office around that time, from June 2002 to February 2, 2003, at the time when the goods were actually sold from AArenk to the automobile buyers. However, such an act became null and void as an illegal transaction in the process of prosecutorial investigation, and the restoration to the original state on July 1, 2003 under an agreement between four corporations, and the issuance of a tax invoice should be deemed normal tax invoice and notify the Plaintiff of the revocation of the denial of the input tax deduction in the Seocho Tax Office, the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, by deducting the input tax amount of CCCT, from the input tax invoice.

8) However, although the purchase tax invoice of this case was actually traded, the head of Seocho District Tax Office maintained the disposition of this case by determining that the time of supply was different from the fact of the actual transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7 through 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In order for a taxation to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient. The defect must be objectively and objectively in violation of the important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which form the basis for the taxation in question, should be considered as a teleologically and at the same time reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, a taxation conducted by a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations, which form the basis for the taxation in question, should be deemed as serious and obvious, but if there are objective circumstances that make it possible to accurately examine the factual relations as to the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it is apparent that the defect is subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed as a matter of course even if AA, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition in question, which misleads the fact of taxation in question, is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul.

2) On the other hand, even if the purchase tax invoice of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is a normal purchase tax invoice, such fact is revealed as a result of the prosecutor's investigation and Gu tax investigation after three years from the date of the disposition of this case conducted around November 2003. Thus, the head of Seocho Tax Office, the disposition agency of this case, could not be deemed as null and void a year since the defect in the disposition of this case could not be deemed to be apparent in appearance, and thus, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed as null and void a year, taking into account the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, it is difficult to view that BB entered the agreement of this case in the way of resolving the problem, and that BB purchased the same kind of vehicle or the same kind of vehicle from the used car sale to the Plaintiff and the CCC car, and thus, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased the same vehicle or the same type of vehicle from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff purchased it again from the Plaintiff 90 or 300.

① The Plaintiff and BB are companies substantially operated by the largest EE, which are jointly engaged in sirens operations with AAren CCC and CCCenecar.

② After the BB purchased the instant vehicle from Arenk, it was impossible for BB to run the car rental business with the instant vehicle due to the amendment of the relevant laws and regulations, BB sold the said vehicle to B on a used car sales basis in consultation with AArenk on January 2002 and February 2002, and on the other hand, issued a tax invoice in the name of AArenk, the owner on the vehicle register, and on the other hand, the said sale was at issue, and the agreement was concluded to restore the instant vehicle to B and issue the tax invoice to resolve the problem.

③ Following the amendment of the relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff was unable to engage in rent-a-car business even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicles, and there was no need to purchase them.

④ On July 1, 2003, the date when the purchase tax invoice of this case was prepared, the Plaintiff and CCC CCC had issued a tax invoice on July 1, 2003, stating that the instant vehicle will be sold again to AArenk. The supply price is almost the same as the supply price of used cars sold by AArenk to the sale of used cars (on the other hand, BB is considerably less than the supply price in the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff and CCC as of July 1, 2003).

⑤ At the date of pleading on August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant vehicle to the used cars for sale on the day of pleading, and then disposed of all of them by the said sale. On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff stated that the vehicle purchased from BB on July 1, 2003 is not the same as that of the instant vehicle, but is the same as that of the instant vehicle.

6. However, the Plaintiff did not submit evidentiary materials to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle or 95 vehicles of the same kind as the instant vehicle from the BB on July 1, 2003.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.