1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the whole pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence 1 and 2:

Plaintiff

A is the representative of “D” who was engaged in manufacturing and processing, and Plaintiff B is the representative of “E” who engages in the same business at adjacent places, and the defendant was the representative of “F” who manufactures prefabricated-type panels, etc.

Plaintiff

A as shown in attached Table 1 from around 2012 to around 2014, Defendant B issued each false purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant false tax invoice”) as shown in attached Table 2 from around 2014 to around 2016, and paid to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the value-added tax amount on the sales stated in the instant false tax invoice.

On July 13, 2017, on the grounds that the purchase transaction, such as the Plaintiff’s false tax invoices, from F, was confirmed as a processed purchase, the Director of the Korea Tax Office: (i) around July 13, 2017: (ii) around 13,003,03,468 won 19,468 won in 2013; (iii) around January 15, 2014; (iv) around 3,843,362 won in 2014; (iv) around February 1, 2014; and (v) around August 2, 2017: (v) around 17,142,544 won in total; (v) KRW 10,403,09 won in 203,09; and (v) the notice of taxation of the Plaintiff’s advance notice of taxation (hereinafter “the Notice”).

The Defendant asserted that the Defendant refunded the amount equivalent to the value-added tax that was previously paid for false sales due to the processing transaction, such as the entry of the false tax invoice, among the Plaintiffs, while the Plaintiffs already paid the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to the Defendant, but received the notification of the instant advance notice from the Moni Tax Office and received the notification of the instant advance notice of taxation, additional

Therefore, the defendant is unjust enrichment equivalent to the value-added tax, etc. according to the notice of taxation in this case, and 39.