1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff from March 2006 to the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff paid all the purchase price, taxes, insurance premiums, etc. of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has no substantial right to the instant vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without any legal ground, issued a tax invoice with respect to the instant vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff and entered into the Defendant Company under the name of the Defendant, and deducted the amount equivalent to the value-added tax of the instant vehicle from the input tax amount by using the said tax invoice and refunded the said money. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the said value-added tax refund amount should be refunded to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant has been running a transportation vehicle leasing business, such as automobile leasing business, automobile maintenance business, etc., a company with the aim of broadcasting photography business, manufacturing costs for broadcasting photography, auxiliary contributors, etc.

B. On June 20, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to register the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the name of the Defendant, purchased B vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and registered in the name of the Defendant, and then, the Plaintiff operated and managed the vehicle, while operating and managing the vehicle, received the fare from the Defendant while operating and transporting the transport for broadcasting photography at the Defendant’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

3. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant unjustly obtained the refund of value-added tax without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle in the name of the Defendant Company in the name of the Defendant Company, and the vehicle price was paid to the Defendant in installments over three years. Accordingly, the Defendant did so.