2. All of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

"A. DDDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") is established on October 30, 2003 in order to carry on the business related to EE Round Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EE"), a multi-level marketing company." (b) EE has six branches, including Gangnam, Busan, and Daejeon, and Daejeon, and operated 62 centers across the country through the EE branch offices and centers, and the non-party company did not have a separate branch and center, and the two companies maintained and managed the sales organization through the organization relationship with the manager (the center, and the upper-level sales company).

C. On the basis of a prospectus or a basic lecture distributed at the headquarters by each center, the non-party company recruited new sales staff by holding a business explanation meeting to invite its salespersons to join, and the Plaintiffs were employed as the salespersons of the non-party company.

D. EE mainly sells health food, etc. because the sales amount is limited to not more than 000 won according to the laws and regulations related to multi-level marketing, and the non-party company, where there were no such restrictions, sells health food, etc., relatively high-priced and multi-family appliances, and multi-family appliances sold by the non-party company, and the cost of the goods sold by the non-party company was only 1.16% of the sales price, and the sales of the non-party company, including the plaintiffs, purchases the goods to enhance the performance mainly, and there was no particular interest in the performance, quality, or price of the goods purchased, and most of them generally do not directly select the goods in ordering the goods, but they are delivered in the form of goods that the head of the center, etc. receives the goods determined by considering the amount invested.

E. Since then, the non-party company's payment of allowances was suspended to the salespersons, and some sales clerks of the non-party company filed a complaint against the non-party company's fraud, and around June 2007, the head FF and the branch executive officer of the non-party company were detained on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Door-to-Door Sales Act, etc., and on October 30, 2007, the non-party company was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment and 5 years imprisonment, respectively, in the Seoul Central District Court 2007 High Court 207 High-Ma525 on October 30, 2007, and the above judgment was dismissed in F, and the appeal (Seoul High Court 2007No2567) and appeal (Seoul High Court 2008Do22366) were finalized on June 12, 2008.

F. Meanwhile, between April 2006 and April 2007, the non-party company reported and paid each value-added tax to the tax authorities from January 2006 to January 2007, and thereafter on March 16, 2009, the non-party company filed a claim for correction against the tax authorities for the total amount of value-added tax of 145,593,218,687 won from January 2006 to January 2007.

G. However, on June 4, 2010, the tax authority rejected the above request for correction, and the company filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition by the Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap23910 on June 4, 2010. On February 23, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment revoking the disposition of rejection of the tax authority's request for correction (hereinafter referred to as "related judgment"). Since then, the tax authority filed an appeal against the related judgment and the appeal case is continuing.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or is not clearly disputed, Gap evidence 306, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) The primary claim

The plaintiffs recommended that part of the goods purchased from the non-party company or EE should be paid to its subordinate business operators without compensation, which constitutes advertising expenses, etc. for business, and Nabs goods should be deemed to fall under sales activities, etc., and the plaintiffs actually engaged in wholesale business after collecting part of the purchase price. If multi-stage salesmen, such as the plaintiffs, are registered under Article 7 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007), then the plaintiffs are naturally recognized as business operators even if they do not file an application for registration of business, and in this case, the plaintiffs should return the difference between the plaintiffs and non-party 25 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Article 26 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act), but if they actually engaged in wholesale business, they should return the difference between the plaintiffs and non-party 25 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the latter.

(b) Preliminary claim

Since the plaintiffs suffered enormous damages due to the fraudulent act of the non-party company, they have the right to claim damages against the non-party company due to default or illegal act. On the other hand, according to the relevant judgment, the non-party company holds the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 000 against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs may exercise the right of subrogation against the defendant in order to preserve the plaintiffs' damage claim by using the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant of the non-party company that will occur in the future as a subrogation claim. Accordingly, the non-party company is liable to pay the above 10 million won as claimed in this case as the amount of the compensation claim against the plaintiff frame, and

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(Omission)

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

1) Article 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act") provides that "any person (an entrepreneur) who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes regardless of the existence of profit-making profit shall pay the value-added tax pursuant to this Act, and Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that "any person who newly commences a business shall register with the head of the competent district tax office within 20 days from the date of commencement of the business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and Article 17 (1) of the same Act provides that "the value-added tax amount payable by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the tax amount on the goods or services supplied by him, and the input tax amount exceeding the output tax amount shall be the tax amount to be refunded, and a person who has the right to be refunded the input tax amount shall be registered independently with the head of the competent tax office under the former Value-Added Tax Act, and shall be registered with the multilevel salesman by 1.

2) Therefore, first of all, the plaintiffs were registered (general registration) in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Article 7(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the following circumstances are revealed by considering the overall purport of the reorganization and pleadings of evidence No. 301 to No. 1301, and evidence No. 12, and there are no objective grounds that the plaintiffs were actually registered, that is, the non-party company submitted a multi-level marketing report necessary for general registration to the tax authorities, and that the non-party company submitted a multi-level marketing report to the tax authorities. ② In addition, for general registration, the multi-level marketing company issued a multi-level marketing report to the tax authorities and the tax authorities received the above report should be prior to the procedure for general registration, and the non-party company No. 301 to No. 7 is merely a multi-level marketing operator's report prepared in the name of the non-party company's actual operator, and the general sales business entity No. 7 of the former Enforcement Decree No. 301 to be found that the plaintiffs did not have any other evidence for the plaintiffs's. 3.

3) In addition, if it appears as if it were to be the supply of goods, it cannot be deemed that there was only the supply of goods that are the cause of taxation of value-added tax, and whether it constitutes this case’s supply value-added tax, and whether the person who receives the supply actually intended to use or consume the goods, and whether there was an intention to recover the investment amount between the parties, it is necessary to individually and specifically determine the tax amount based on the following circumstances: (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13497, Dec. 24, 2008; and (2) since the above tax amount was the most or ice of the supply of the goods, it is difficult to view that the tax amount of the goods to be traded between the plaintiffs and the non-party company was 0,000 after the above tax return date; and (3) it is not reasonable to view that the tax amount of the goods to be traded by the non-party company under the previous provision on the return date for sale and purchase within 00,000 after the above tax return date.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claims are without merit.

B. Determination on the main defense of the conjunctive claim

The obligee’s subrogation right may be exercised by the obligee to preserve his/her claim only when the obligor does not exercise his/her right against the third obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da65839, Mar. 12, 2009; 92Da3016, Nov. 10, 1992). In addition, “the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself” means that the obligor has the right against the third obligor, but the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself, and that it means that the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself, and that there is no legal obstacle that makes it impossible to exercise his/her right by himself/herself, and that the obligor does not exercise his/her right by subrogation until the obligor does not exercise his/her right by subrogation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da9312, Feb. 25, 1992).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the primary claim of the plaintiffs is dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reason, and the primary claim of the plaintiffs is dismissed in entirety.