Note. Do.

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The defendant's omission against this is illegal.

A. Status of the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties

The purpose of the company is 000. The plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the designated parties are those who entered into a door-to-door sales contract with 000 persons who visit and sell goods and receive certain allowances.

(b) Payment of value-added tax of 000 and requests for correction;

(1) Although 00 constitutes 00 business operators established, managed and operated, 000 and reported to 0000 without registration. The Fair Trade Commission received corrective orders, etc. on November 3, 2006. Accordingly, 00 filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of corrective orders, etc. against Seoul High Court (2007Nu6320) but was dismissed on December 20, 207 by the above court on April 24, 2008 (2008Du2293) and was only one of the six tax offices, including the head of the tax office of 00, 2005, 200 to 30 or 160 of the Value-Added Tax Act for the supply of goods without filing a request for correction for 205 or 206 of the Value-Added Tax Act. (2) The 000 was merely one of the six tax offices, including the head of the tax office of 00, 2005 to 201 or 206 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(3) From May 13, 2009 to May 18, 2009, six chief of the tax office, including the head of the regional tax office, rejected a request for rectification for KRW 145,593,218,687 of the value-added tax, on the ground that “an application for rectification for KRW 145,593,218,687 of the value-added tax during the period from January 1, 2006 to January 18, 2009 is subject to taxation pursuant to Articles 6 and 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act.”

(4) On June 4, 2010, the Seoul Administrative Court (2010Guhap23910) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the corrective disposition against six chief of the tax office, etc. on the grounds that “The sales of goods to its subordinate salespersons was made in the form of sale in order to pretend the supply of goods, and the substance of the sales was merely a de facto monetary transaction that attracting investments through the medium of the goods and pays investment allowances accordingly,” respectively, the Seoul High Court (2012Nu9422) rendered a judgment revoking the corrective disposition and dismissed the appeal on November 23, 2012. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Claim for refund of value-added tax by Plaintiffs and Appointors

(1) On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “00 shall be 00 sales business operators,” and that taxpayers under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs sent a certificate of content that “the amount of value-added tax refunded 6, 494, 042, 285 won and additional dues shall be refunded” that was reported and paid under the name of 000, and the said certificate of content reaches the Defendant on June 11, 2013.

(2) The defendant did not answer this.

(3) The Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed a request for review on September 16, 2013, but a decision of dismissal was made on November 13, 2013 on the ground that the Board of Audit and Inspection did not have any right under the law or sound reasoning to seek a return.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs and the designated parties are formally engaged in the transaction of goods on door-to-door sales and door-to-door sales, but 00 is a multi-level marketing business entity and a multi-level marketing business entity. However, the payment of value-added tax on behalf of the Plaintiffs and designated parties who are the persons liable for tax payment, the persons liable for tax payment and the persons liable for tax payment of value-added tax on 1, 2005 and the persons liable for tax payment of value-added tax should be revised to the Plaintiffs and designated parties who actually paid the value-added tax, and Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides for the head of the administrative agency for the notification obligation as a result of the civil petition processing for civil petitioners, if all or part of the tax liability does not exist substantially, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of tax to the person liable for tax payment, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs and designated parties are entitled under the law or sound reasoning to seek correction or correction thereof against the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s omission

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that the head of the competent tax office is the person who determines the return, payment, and refund of value-added tax, and 000 persons who independently supplied goods for business are persons liable to pay value-added tax, and the Plaintiffs and the designated parties are not parties to the transaction of 000 persons who are subject to value-added tax, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties do not have any right under the relevant law or sound reasoning to seek correction of illegal state against the Defendant

B. Determination

(1) A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system for the purpose of removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance by promptly responding to an administrative agency by confirming that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to a request based on a party’s legal or sound right, even though there is a legal obligation to respond to the request within a reasonable period of time. Such a lawsuit can be instituted only by a person who has filed the request for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission. Thus, in a case where the party does not have a legal or sound right to request an administrative agency to take any administrative disposition, or where there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, it cannot be deemed that there is an illegal omission subject to an appeal litigation, or where there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, such lawsuit is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du11455, Feb. 25, 200).

In addition, according to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the "Civil Petitions Treatment Act", a civil petition may be filed by mail, facsimile, etc., and Article 15 of the "Civil Petitions Treatment Act" provides that the administrative agency shall notify in writing the civil petition applicant of the results of treatment of the civil petition filed by the civil petition. Thus, the administrative agency in receipt of the civil petition is obligated to notify the civil petition applicant of the results of treatment pursuant to the provisions of the above Act. However, even if the administrative agency has the duty to notify the results of treatment of the civil petition, it is decided whether the omission for which the administrative agency does not process the civil petition is not the object of litigation for confirmation of illegality of omission under the Administrative Litigation Act, but the administrative agency has the duty to

(2) According to Article 21(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same), the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service having jurisdiction over a place of business shall investigate, determine and correct the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of refundable tax for the taxable period when a business operator makes a final tax return, and pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the determination and correction shall be made by the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over each place of business, but if the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service deems it particularly important, he

① The value-added tax had already been corrected, and according to the Seoul Central District Court (2013 Gohap19149), a sum of KRW 157,428,228,696 of refund money has been deposited in combination.

- - Other

Therefore, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties can exercise their rights to refund money against 000 by seeking confirmation from the deposit recipient, and even if the Defendant confirms the taxpayer and the person to whom the amount of refund reverts, the deposit money can not be received.

(2) Article 51(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “In cases where a taxpayer has paid any amount in excess of the erroneously paid amount of national tax, additional dues, or disposition fee for arrears, or there is any refund amount to be refunded under the tax-related Acts, the head of a tax office shall immediately determine the amount of such erroneous payment, the amount paid in excess, or the amount of refund, as a refund of national tax.” Meanwhile, the person liable for tax refund is the person who has paid the overpaid or erroneously paid tax or the amount to be refunded. In principle, the person liable for tax refund is the person who has paid the overpaid or erroneously paid the tax amount or the amount to be refunded. However, even though the wage and salary income, etc. falling under subparagraphs 1 through 7 of Article 73(1) of the Income Tax Act did not directly pay the tax amount, the person liable for tax

(3) A request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is limited to a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, or who has received the determination of tax base and amount of national taxes, but only recognizes a request for correction with respect to a nonresident, a foreign corporation, and a withholding agent who has certain domestic source income under the Income Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act. In addition, the subject of a request for correction is also an excessive return of tax base and amount of tax, an excessive return of

④ Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 70 of the Enforcement Decree thereof stipulate only the tax base and payable amount, and the determination and correction of refundable amount, and do not stipulate any change in the taxpayer and refund subject. In addition, Article 24 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business shall refund the amount of refundable tax for each taxable period to the business under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

(3) In addition, with respect to the value-added tax of January 2006 through January 2007, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiffs and the designated parties requested correction of the value-added tax of June 1, 2005 and June 10, 2013, and did not request correction of the value-added tax of January 2006 through January 2007. There is no evidence to support that the Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed a request for correction of the value-added tax of January 2006 through January 2007.

Therefore, there is no application with respect to value-added tax from January 2006 to January 2007. Therefore, the part seeking confirmation of omission is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits, and it is so decided as per Disposition.