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

3. The plaintiffs shall bear the expenses.

The following facts may be recognized by taking into account the absence of dispute between the parties, and the whole purport of each entry and pleading in subparagraphs A through 400, and evidence Nos. 404-1 through 26:

A.CC Co., Ltd., a door-to-door sales company (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”) is a company established on October 30, 2003 in order to run a business related to DDR (hereinafter referred to as the “DDR”).

(b)DDD has six branches in Seoul, Southern, Gwangju, and Daejeon, and Daegu, and has operated 62 centers across the country, and the company outside the country was engaged in its operations through the branch offices and the center of DD, and there was no separate branch offices and the center, and the two companies maintained and managed the organization of the sales organization through the operation (the center) and the sales management (the center name) and the organization relationship between the upper-ranking sales personnel and the subordinate sales personnel, based on the results of the purchase of the goods.

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 clerks by holding a business explanation meeting to invite their salespersons to join, and the plaintiffs were employed as the sales clerks of the non-party company.

D. DDR sold health food, etc. mainly because the sales amount is limited to below 000 won according to the laws and regulations related to the multi-level marketing business, and the non-party company, which had no such restriction, sold the non-party company's products such as low-priced silver and multi-family appliances, etc., and the cost of the products sold by the non-party company was only 1.16% of the sales price, and the sales of the non-party company only purchased the products to increase the actual performance, and there was no particular interest in the performance, quality, or price of the products purchased, and most of the sales in general, issued orders by the head of the center, etc. taking into account the amount invested, and the non-party company did not have any particular import personnel other than this commodity sales.

E. Since then, the non-party company filed a complaint against the non-party company for fraud, and some sales clerks of the non-party company filed a complaint against the non-party company. On June 2007, 2007, the EEE and DoFFFF was 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, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Door) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Door-to-Door Sales. On October 30, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the non-party company to nine years of imprisonment and five years of imprisonment, respectively, and the above decision was finalized on June 12, 2008 as both the appeal of the EF and the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2007No2567) were dismissed.

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 subsequently, on March 16, 2009, the non-party company took the form of sale and purchase of goods to attract investment funds without actual transaction of goods, and filed a claim for correction against the tax authorities for the total amount of 00 won of value-added tax from January 2006 to January 2007.

G. Accordingly, the pertinent tax authorities rendered a disposition rejecting a request for correction of the non-party company to the effect that the non-party company supplied the goods purchased by the non-party company to the salespersons after receiving the price constitutes subject to taxation pursuant to Articles 6 and 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”).

H. On August 7, 2009, the non-party company filed a tax appeal against each of the instant refusal dispositions, and on March 9, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rejected all the non-party company's appeal on the ground that the transaction type between the non-party company and the salesperson is somewhat different from the ordinary commercial transactions, and the non-party company's act of selling the goods to the multi-stage salesman constitutes a transaction subject to value-added tax, and the above decision reached the non-party company on March 11, 2010.

I. On June 4, 2010, the Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap23910 filed a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the rejection disposition of this case. On February 23, 2012, the above court accepted the non-party company's claim and rendered a decision to revoke the rejection disposition of the non-party company (hereinafter "related judgment") on the grounds that the transaction between the non-party company and the salesperson was conducted in the form of trade to pretend the supply of goods, and its substance is nothing more than the actual monetary transaction to attract investment funds and to pay investment allowances. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that there was the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and it is illegal to calculate the tax amount by including the sales amount of the non-party company in the tax base at the time of reporting the initial value-added tax to the tax authority. Since each rejection disposition of the tax authority on the premise that the initial value-added tax return of the non-party company is legitimate, all of the tax authorities' rejection disposition of the non-party company is unlawful, and the related judgment is pending in the appeal by the tax authority.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) The primary claim

The plaintiffs solicited non-party company or DD to pay and use part of the goods purchased from the non-party company or DD free of charge to sub-business operators. This constitutes advertising expenses for business advertisement, etc., and since the remaining goods were disposed of to intermediate wholesalers and recovered part of the purchase price, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs actually engaged in wholesale business. If multi-stage salesmen such as the plaintiffs and multi-stage salesmen are registered in accordance with Article 7 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act"), the plaintiffs are naturally recognized as business operators even if each of the plaintiffs did not file an application for registration of business, but in this case, the plaintiffs can be a simplified taxable person for whom the refund of value-added tax is not recognized, but since the plaintiffs actually engaged in wholesale business, they are obligated to pay the difference between the value-added tax (value-added tax) and the damages for delay.

(b) Preliminary claim

Since the plaintiffs suffered enormous damages due to the acts of fraud of the non-party company, they have the right to claim damages against the non-party company due to default or illegal acts. On the other hand, according to the related judgment, the non-party company holds the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 000 against the defendant, and the plaintiffs can exercise the right to claim the subrogation against the defendant in order to preserve the plaintiffs' damage claim by using the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant of the non-party company that will occur in the future as subrogation claim. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay unjust enrichment

3. Determination

A. Judgment 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 and the obligor is able to exercise his/her right, but it means that the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself, and that the obligor does not 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 his/her own reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da9312, Feb. 25, 1992).

B. 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 who supplies independently any goods or services for profit, regardless of whether it is for profit, shall pay value-added tax under this Act." Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that "any person who newly starts a business shall register his business with the head of the competent district tax office of the workplace within 20 days from the date of commencement of the business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 17 (1) of the same Act provides that "The value-added tax amount payable by a multi-level salesman 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 amount exceeding the input tax amount shall be the tax amount to be refunded, and any person who has the right to be refunded the input tax amount in excess of the input tax amount shall be independently registered with the head of the competent tax office under the former Value-Added Tax Act, and other multi-level persons who report his business.

(2) Therefore, first of all, the following circumstances are revealed by considering whether the plaintiffs were registered (general registration) in accordance with the procedures stipulated in Article 7(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the entry of No. 401 to No. 7 and No. 7 in the evidence No. 7, and the overall purport of the arguments, and there are no objective grounds that the plaintiffs were actually registered, or that the non-party company submitted the multi-level marketing general registration report to the tax authority for the overall registration of the plaintiffs, and the non-party company submitted the multi-level marketing general registration report to the tax authority. ② In addition, for the general registration, the multi-level marketing company submitted the report to the tax authority and the tax authority received the above report must be prior to the procedure. The evidence No. 401 to No. 7 of the evidence No. 401 is merely the multi-level marketing salesperson report prepared in the name of the non-party company, the actual operator of the non-party company and the non-party company No. 7, and the general sales salesperson report submitted No. 1 or non-party No. 7.

(3) In addition, if the supply of goods appears to exist, it is merely the pretending or iceing the supply of goods, and if it can be seen that only the receipt of investment funds without the transaction of goods, it cannot be deemed that there was the supply of goods that is the cause of the imposition of value-added tax, and whether it constitutes the case where the person who receives the supply is the objective value of the goods in question and the reasonable value of the goods, and whether the parties are willing to actually use and consume the goods, and whether the collection of investment funds is scheduled between the parties, it shall be determined independently and specifically in light of the legal principles as seen above (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13497, Dec. 24, 2008). Since the price of the goods subject to the transaction between the plaintiffs and the non-party company is not reasonable, and since the plaintiffs and the sales agents including the plaintiffs are merely those who received from the non-party company only the amount equivalent to 5% value-added tax without their acquisition of the goods in question and paid the goods to the non-party company.

(4) Furthermore, Article 45-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes") provides that a person who fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date shall file a return of tax base. The former Act, unlike the former Act, provides that a person who has a tax amount after the due date may file a return of tax base, may file a return of tax base return within the statutory due date, and only a person who has a tax amount after the due date (hereinafter referred to as "after the due date") may file a return of tax base return within the statutory due date. However, Article 6 of the Addenda of the former Act provides that a person who has a tax amount to be refunded shall apply the above amended provision from the date at which the statutory due date of return arrives after January 1, 207, and the plaintiff shall file a return of tax base return within the statutory due date of return for the last 20 days after the due date of return for value-added tax for the defendant 20.

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

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims in the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as all of the plaintiffs' primary claims are unlawful, and all of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as