1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiffs are business operators operating D sales agencies.

E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is a corporation established on April 17, 200 and engaged in automobile rental business, and the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) is a corporation established on May 28, 2010 and engaged in automobile information provision business.

Plaintiff

A and C were supplied with vehicle purchase information from F during the respective taxable periods of value-added tax for the second period of 2012 between 2012 and 2013, 276,115,213, 88,73,002, and 349,83,776, 2786, 278, 279, 278, 278, 26168, 278, 269, 207, 278, 205, 207, 279, 207, 207, 364, 205, 207, 205, 207, 207, 365, 207, 207, 205, 207, 3616, 2965, 206, 2013, 206, 20636, 29616, 2616

The Defendant, on the ground that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice because the Plaintiffs received sales incentives to be paid to E by the Plaintiffs for the payment to F, deducted the relevant input tax amount, and notified the Plaintiffs A and the Plaintiff of each value-added tax from the first to the second of the second of the year 2012 in 2013 as stated in the purport of the claim, and the second of the value-added tax in 2012 to the Plaintiff B respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 27, 2018.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 (including each number), and arguments.