2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant shall pay 20% interest per annum to Plaintiff AAA Co., Ltd. at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd. and the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff AA corporation ○○○○ and the plaintiff BB ○○ with 20% interest per annum from May 30, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

A. Status of the parties

Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff AA”) from October 16, 2002 to around 16, 2002, with 72 ○○○○-ri, △△△-si as its principal office located, and Plaintiff AB was the representative director of Plaintiff AA. Plaintiff AA opened a branch, from July 25, 2002 to July 25, 2006, ○○-dong 226-1 (hereinafter referred to as “○○-dong ○○-dong ”) located from Seoul to July 5, 2006 to 650-2 (hereinafter referred to as “△△-dong △△△-dong branch”). < Amended by Act No. 7813, Jul. 5, 2006>

(b) First tax investigation and first accusation;

1) From February 2006, the director of theCC issued 45 false sales tax invoices equivalent to the supply price of 00 won to five companies, such as the EE (hereinafter referred to as the "EE"), which received 1,540,648,000 won false purchase tax invoices and accused the plaintiffs of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as the "1") on September 2006.

2) On August 3, 2007, the △△△ branch office of the ○○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued five purchase tax invoices to Plaintiff AA on the ground of “○○○○, △△△△, △△△, and △△△, unspecified personal information, or unknown whereabouts,” regarding the first accusation. On September 23, 2011, on the ground that the statute of limitations on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders by the Plaintiffs was expired on December 30, 2010, the △△△△ branch office of the ○○ Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a decision to suspend a witness for the reason that the statute of limitations on the charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders by the Plaintiffs was expired (No. 201

(c) Secondary tax investigation and secondary accusation;

1) On March 2008, the director of the tax office conducted a tax investigation with respect to Plaintiff AA (hereinafter referred to as “the second tax investigation”) on the charge of material facts. At that time, the Plaintiff issued to Plaintiff FF (hereinafter referred to as “FF”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GG”), GG (hereinafter referred to as “GG”), and BG (hereinafter referred to as “the second accusation”) 13 copies of false sales tax invoices equivalent to the supply value of 00 won without real transactions.

2) On October 30, 2008, the △△ District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition to the effect that the second accusation was not suspected on the ground of the lack of evidence (Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office 2008 type No. 37571).

(d) Primary tax investigation and third accusation;

1) On November 2008, the head of HH tax office issued one false sales tax invoice of KRW 21,400,000 without real transaction during the second taxable period (from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005), and filed a complaint against the Plaintiffs in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act") by falsely receiving 11 purchase tax invoices equivalent to the actual transaction value without real transaction value from the company II (hereinafter referred to as "II"), J and KK (hereinafter referred to as "K"), and filing a complaint against the Plaintiffs in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act").

2) 제3차 고발에 대하여 ■■지방검찰청은 2010. 12. 31. '대경과의 거래는 □□지방검찰청으로부터 혐의없음 처분을 받았다는 사실에 비추어 혐의가 없고, 허위 매입세금계산서 거래의 경우 원고들에게 세금계산서를 교부한 업체인 JJ 및 II의 대표자인 iii, KK의 대표자인 kkk이 모두 조세범처벌법위반으로 처벌받은 경력이 없는 것으로 보아 원고들의 혐의사실을 입증할 증거자료가 없다'는 증거불충분을 이유로 혐의없음 처분을 하였다(■■지방검찰청 2010형제93919호).

E. Ex officio closure, etc. of Plaintiff Alley

1) On August 18, 2006, in the course of conducting the first tax investigation, the Director of theCC Tax Office: (a) made ex officio closure of business (hereinafter referred to as “ex officio closure of business”) in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on the grounds that Plaintiff AA’s head office was not actually engaged in business as a suspect on data; and (b) cancelled the registration of business. On August 21, 2006, the Director of the Tax Office, upon Plaintiff BB’s request, cancelled the registration of business after ex officio closure of business with respect to Plaintiff AA’s head office.

2) On November 29, 2006, Plaintiff BB filed an application for the cancellation of the instant ex officio closure with the CC Tax Office, and the director of the CC Tax Office recovered the business registration of Plaintiff AA’s head office on December 18, 2006. After which, around March 9, 2007, Plaintiff BB filed a report on the closure of the business registration of Plaintiff AA’s head office and subsequently revoked Plaintiff AAA’s business registration with respect to the head office.

(f) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements as to Gap's 1 to 4, 36 through 38, 57, 83 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statements as to Eul's 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. At the time of the first tax investigation conducted by the public official in charge of the CC under the Defendant’s control, Plaintiff AA operated its business at the XX Dong branch (including the head office) and the 294-3 branch (hereinafter referred to as “xx Dong branch”) located at the ○○ Dong branch (hereinafter referred to as “Sdong branch”) and operated its business at the △dong branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Sdong branch”), and most of the businesses and administrative affairs were conducted at the branch of Plaintiff AA. In addition, at that time, Plaintiff AA and the LL corporation (hereinafter referred to as “LL”) separately used their business registration and corporate registration and corporate registration, but it was actually the same company. At the time of the first tax investigation conducted by Plaintiff BB, the above public official in charge visited Plaintiff A’s main office from among the branch offices of Plaintiff AA and the 294-3 branch offices in Seoul, and did not make any objective investigation by the public official in charge of the Plaintiff A’s official in charge of the 100-dong branch office and did not have any objective justification for the Plaintiffs 1.

B. Although the plaintiffs did not know that the processing transaction under the name of the plaintiff AA was conducted at the time of the execution of each tax investigation of this case, the public officials in charge of the CC Tax Office and the BB Tax Office under the defendant did not properly implement the procedures, such as giving prior notice to the plaintiffs or giving an opportunity to vindicate the plaintiffs, and did not confirm the plaintiffs' opinions or explanatory materials, and then classified the plaintiffs into the data, and then made each of the tax investigation of this case, and then made each of the complaint of this case. Ultimately, the competent public prosecutor's office did not have the authority to prosecute each of the complaint of this case, or made a disposition without suspicion. Accordingly, in the investigation of this case and each of the complaint of this case, the public officials in charge of the defendant are recognized to have lost the objective legitimacy by failure to perform the duty of care when considering that each of the complaint of this case was made in accordance with the general public official's standard, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs

C. Plaintiff AA’s public officials in charge of the Defendant’s above illegal acts, as well as the credit has been deteriorated due to the destruction of a contract, etc. with the trading company, which eventually led to bankruptcy. Therefore, the Defendant, as part of the public officials in charge of the Defendant’s above illegal acts, is liable to pay Plaintiff AA’s total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiffs to the public officials in charge of the Defendant (i.e., finished goods KRW 00 won for inventory assets destroyed + KRW 00 won for the discarded construction section and apparatus, and KRW 00 won for the discarded short-term loan + KRW 00 won for losses incurred due to the termination of the export contract concluded with the Indonesian company + KRW 00 won for losses caused by the destruction of the export contract concluded with the Plaintiff company). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs’ damages to each of the above Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff’s damages to each of the above KRW 00 billion for delay.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Even if any administrative disposition can be judged to be illegal as a result, it cannot be determined that the administrative disposition was immediately caused by the intention or negligence of the public official, and therefore constitutes a tort, and if the public official in charge of the administrative disposition generally violates the duty of objective care when considering the public official as the standard, the administrative disposition lost objective legitimacy.

It is reasonable to deem that the State’s liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act has been satisfied to the extent that it can be recognized as such. Whether an objective legitimacy has been lost ought to be determined by whether there exists a substantial reason to impose the State or local government on the State or local government the liability for compensating damages by taking account of various circumstances, such as the form and purpose of administrative disposition that constitutes an infringement, the victim’s involvement, the degree of involvement, and the type of gains infringed and the degree of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da206368, Nov. 14, 20

B. The part on the assertion regarding the disposition of the instant ex officio closure against the Plaintiff AA

In light of the following circumstances, as seen earlier, evidence and evidence as mentioned above, evidence as well as evidence Nos. 5 through 7, 14, 19, 84 through 86, and evidence Nos. 31, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the public official in charge of theCC tax investigation conducted an investigation for the disposition of the ex officio closure of business in this case by violating the duty of due care as a public official, thereby admitting that the disposition of the ex officio discontinuance of business in this case was invalidated.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

1) At the time of conducting the first tax investigation, the head office of the Plaintiff AA was located in ○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○, the head office of the Plaintiff AA, and there was no manager or business facilities, nor did it manage the workplace at all, and it seems that there was no report at the competent tax office on the change of the head office of the Plaintiff AA.

2) According to the Plaintiff BB’s assertion that at the time of the first tax investigation, Plaintiff AA’s head office used the ○○ Dong branch as the workplace, the public official in charge of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties of the duties.

3) On the ground of Plaintiff BB’s assertion that at the time of the first tax investigation, Plaintiff AA’s head office uses ○○ Dong branch as its workplace, the public officials in charge of theCC tax secretary appears to have not visited ○○ Dong branch or △△ Dong branch in addition to the ○○ Dong branch. Accordingly, Plaintiff BB did not raise any objection.

4) Under the above circumstances, it appears that the public officials in charge of theCC tax secretary could have judged that the head office of Plaintiff AA was actually not operating the business. The revocation of the instant ex officio closure of business after several months seems to have been due to the Plaintiffs’ additional vindications.

C. The part concerning the first and third tax investigation and the first and third accusation against the plaintiffs

1) On July 21, 2006, when the first tax investigation was conducted, 41 companies such as ○ Commercial Co., Ltd. submitted a request to the tax office under the name of Plaintiff AA to the effect that the pertinent public prosecutor's office made a false investigation because it did not have the authority to prosecute the first accusation, and that the third accusation was not suspected. According to each of the above evidence and the statement in Gap Nos. 30, 32, 33, 39, 42, and 42, respectively, the plaintiffs BB submitted a request to the effect that the plaintiff B Co., Ltd. submitted a false tax invoice to the effect that "the plaintiff B Co., Ltd. submitted a false tax invoice to the tax office under the name of the plaintiff AA" and that the plaintiff B Co., Ltd. submitted a false tax invoice to the effect that the plaintiff B Co., Ltd. was not a transactional relationship with the plaintiff AA, and that the plaintiff B Co., Ltd. submitted a false tax invoice to the plaintiff 206.

2) On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to deem that the first and the third accusation of the public officials in charge ofCC tax secretary and HH tax secretary, who violated their duty of due care in conducting the first and third tax investigation, has reached the extent that the first and third accusation of the public officials would have been deemed to have lost objective legitimacy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) Article 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 81-7 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911 of Jan. 1, 2010), where a tax official conducts a tax investigation, he/she shall notify the taxpayer who is subject to the tax investigation of the items of investigation and the reason for investigation before the commencement of the investigation. However, in cases of a tax investigation or prior notice of an offence case, where it is deemed that the purpose of investigation cannot be achieved due to the destruction of evidence, etc., a prior notice may be omitted. The first and third tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff AA as a tax investigation conducted on suspicion of an offence case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the above public official was negligent in the course, even if the public official in charge ofCC and H tax secretary did not give prior notice to the Plaintiffs. In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs were given sufficient opportunity to submit evidence at the time of the third tax investigation or statement.

B) In the process of the first tax investigation, Plaintiff BB submitted each of the instant requests demanding an investigation against Plaintiff AB-listed companies in the name of Plaintiff AA, and attached the written request to the representative of some companies that recognized the issuance of false tax invoices in the name of Plaintiff AA, but eventually failed to submit objective evidence supporting the forgery of the tax invoice in the name of Plaintiff AA. As such, it is difficult to deem that the above circumstance alone proves that the Plaintiffs did not engage in any transaction in data during the investigation period.

C) On January 25, 2006, when filing a voluntary report of value-added tax in 2005 on January 25, 2006, the Plaintiffs reported that the portion of issuance of sales tax invoices to ○○ companies, etc., for which the Plaintiffs are forged, was included in the sales amount of the Plaintiff AA. If the said companies were to have forged the tax invoices in the name of the Plaintiff AA, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to easily understand the aforementioned actions.

D) Of the sales offices of Plaintiff AA, etc. claimed by the Plaintiffs as normal traders, △△△ Company, etc. did not pay the corrected value-added tax on the disposition of rectification of value-added tax issued by the tax authority on the grounds that the tax invoice was the processing tax invoice, or did not follow any objection procedure.

E) From among the purchasing places of Plaintiff AA’s assertion that the Plaintiffs were normal traders, the Magitius was 2, 2004, J was 1 and 2, 2005, MM was 2, 2004, and N was not subject to a value-added tax return on transactions with Plaintiff AA during each taxable period of 2, 2004, and N was 2, 2004. However, if the said companies were to engage in normal transactions with Plaintiff AA, it appears that there was no reason not to file a value-added tax return on large purchase tax invoices.

F) In the process of the police investigation, Sung○, the representative of N, the purchasing entity of Plaintiff AA, who claimed the Plaintiffs as a normal trading entity, was given a loan of KRW 300,000 to the contact point indicated in the newspaper loan advertisement column, and was given a certified copy, abstract, and a certificate of personal seal impression. However, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the NN corporation was registered in his/her name and was investigated as a material suspect.

G) As to the third accusation, the competent public prosecutor’s office did not have any evidence to prove the alleged violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground that the Gangwon-do, which was the representative of J and LL, among the purchasing offices of Plaintiff AA, deemed that there was no career of having been punished as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and there was no evidence to prove the facts of Plaintiff BB’s suspicion. However, with respect to the river under investigation on the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at that time, there was only the suspension of witness by the competent public prosecutor’s office for the reason that the whereabouts of the △△△△ was unknown, it is difficult to view that

H) The public officials in charge ofCC tax secretary and HH tax secretary accused the Plaintiffs on three occasions on the basis of material suspicion, while the taxable period of value-added tax (from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005) at issue in the third accusation overlaps with the first accusation, but the first accusation case was taken on September 23, 201 until there is no prosecution right on September 23, 201. Accordingly, the first accusation case was taken as a witness suspension until there was a disposition on September 23, 201. Accordingly, it appears that there was no substantial judgment by the investigative agency on the Plaintiffs’ material facts pertaining to the during the pertinent taxable period until December 208, the third accusation is difficult to view the third accusation as an abuse of the right of accusation.

D. The part concerning the second tax investigation and second accusation against the plaintiffs

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the public official in charge of theCC in charge of the second accusation after conducting the second tax investigation to the extent that it can be recognized that the second accusation was lost objective legitimacy by violating the objective duty of care as a public official, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) The second tax investigation is a tax investigation conducted on the suspicion of Plaintiff A with respect to data and constitutes a case where the prior notice may be omitted because the tax investigation constitutes an offence case and constitutes a tax investigation. Thus, even if the public official in charge of theCC did not give prior notice to the Plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that the above public official in charge was negligent in the process. Furthermore, since it appears that the public official in charge of the second tax investigation was given a sufficient opportunity to explain to the Plaintiffs through the submission of evidence or statement of evidence at the time of conducting the second tax investigation, it is difficult to view

2) Of the sales offices of Plaintiff AA claimed that the Plaintiffs were normal traders, ○○ Company, etc. paid the corrected value-added tax on the disposition of rectification of the value-added tax by the tax authority that was issued by the Plaintiff AA on the ground that the tax invoice was processed, or did not follow any objection procedure.

3) In the process of the second tax investigation, Plaintiff BB made a statement to the effect that part of the tax invoices presented to ○○○ Company present at theCC tax secretary on March 12, 2008 were issued without actually providing construction services.

4) Since the second accusation appears to have existed between the first and the third accusation and the taxable period subject to it, it is difficult to regard the second accusation as an abuse of the right of accusation.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there was an intentional or negligent act on the part of the public official belonging to the defendant in charge of the tax investigation of this case or each tax investigation of this case and each accusation of this case is without merit without any need to further examine the remaining points.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.