beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), Defendant G is the representative director of Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”), and Defendant E was the representative director of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) around March 201.
B. Defendant A entered into a contract with the Industrial Bank of Korea on March 25, 2011 with the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee (guarantee amount of KRW 204,000,000).
C. Defendant A submitted a tax invoice of KRW 69,300,000 issued by Defendant D on March 29, 201 to the Industrial Bank of Korea and received the said money on the same day (hereinafter “instant one loan”); and ② Defendant F submitted a tax invoice of KRW 14,91,90 issued on March 30, 201 to the Industrial Bank of Korea and received the said money on the same day.
(hereinafter “instant two loans”). D.
On December 19, 2011, the Plaintiff paid to the Industrial Bank of Korea KRW 207,419,413 ( principal KRW 203,984,480, interest KRW 3,434,933) as a result of a credit guarantee accident. With respect to the instant one loan, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 58,905,00 as to the instant two loans, KRW 12,743,115 in total, KRW 71,648,115 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the issue
A. In full view of the relevant provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act on the issuance of tax invoices by the Plaintiff and the relevant provisions of the Bank of Korea Regulations on the Loan of Funds for Enterprise Purchase related to the Loans for Enterprise Purchase (amended by the Regulations on the Handling of Funds for Enterprise Purchase by Financial Institutions, April 25, 2013; hereinafter “the Handling Regulations”), the Plaintiff’s application for the loan of corporate purchase funds is not prohibited, i.e., the price of the goods already provided prior to 30 days prior to the payment of the outstanding amount, and in such a case, the financial institution does not implement the loan of corporate purchase funds.
Defendant D and F provide each of the goods to Defendant A.