1. Around March 2016, Defendant C and Nonparty E regarding the business indicated in the separate sheet of business.

Basic Facts

The plaintiffs are the creditors of non-party F and E.

F and E are simple mother-and-child, Defendant D married on December 6, 2016, and Defendant C is a relative of F and the third degree of relationship.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with F and E seeking the payment of loans to F and E by this Court 2014Gahap26259.

On June 15, 2016, the Court rendered a ruling that “Defendant F and E jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 170,000,000 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 6% per annum from October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the above plaintiffs’ right to claim the loans of this case was referred to as “the loans of this case”).” (Although the Seoul High Court appealed as 2016Na2042167, the appeal was dismissed on April 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, the plaintiffs' assertion as to the plaintiffs' claim as to the overall purport of Gap's evidence 2 and 10 and the main purport of the argument as to defendant C with respect to the main claim against "G" without the actual intention of operation to "G", and the defendant C lent only the business registration name of "G" in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H 1st floor and operated by E in substance.

Since this is null and void as a false conspiracy, Defendant C owes a duty to return “G”’s operating profit to E with unjust enrichment, and Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 100,000,000, which is part of its operating profit, to the Plaintiffs subrogated to E in order to preserve the instant loan claim against insolvent E.

Judgment

The purpose of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and to secure the taxation data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000), so the name of business registration does not indicate the location of the private business right.

Therefore, it is true.