beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단1063

물품대금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff in the background of the case is a person who runs a petroleum sales business without being registered with the competent authority in Scheon-si D.

The defendants are farmers who grow a spatha in Gangwon-gu Yang-gun E, and are using a boiler for the purpose of cultivating the spatha in the greenhouse.

Copier farmers are allocated tax-free oil from the F Cooperatives to use it as boiler fuel. In fact, heavy oil (mith oil) with low tax-free oil (700-100 won per 1 liter duty-free oil) is mainly used.

The plaintiff and the defendants conspired to acquire tax-free oil through deception.

From around 2009 to 2013, the Plaintiff provided the Defendants with tax-free petroleum purchase funds, and the Defendants purchased a tax-free petroleum purchase card from the F Cooperatives with the tax-free petroleum purchase funds, and then offered the card to the gas station, and transferred the card to the Plaintiff.

If the Defendants transferred tax-free oil to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff calculated 300-320 won per 1 liter of the tax-free oil and deducted from the tax-free oil purchase fund.

As above, the Plaintiff supplied heavy oil to the Defendants at a low price (300-320 won per 1 liter) compared to tax-free price (700-1100 won per 1 liter). In return, the Plaintiff supplied heavy oil to the Defendants at KRW 700-800 per 1 liter.

In the case of violation of the Act on the Punishment of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the said court convicted the Plaintiff and the Defendants of the criminal facts of violating the Act on May 14, 2015, the said court sentenced the Defendant 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor, 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B, and 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment for Defendant C.

In the case of Chuncheon District Court 2015No513, the appellate court held that the above court violated the Plaintiff's Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act on August 25, 2016.