“The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute an independent supplier of goods or services for the business that the Plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax”;

"The transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company was conducted in the form of sale in order to pretend the supply of goods. It is reasonable to view that the substance of the transaction is merely a de facto monetary transaction that attracts investment funds and pays investment allowances. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the transaction falls under the category of "the business that supplies goods or services independently in the business that the plaintiffs are liable to pay value-added tax" (the content of the judgment)

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011 Also 76483 Return of unjust enrichment

It is as shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

Korea

November 1, 2012

November 20, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims are dismissed among the lawsuit of this case.

2. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Main and Preliminary, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from the following day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the sentencing day of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap's 1 through 300, Gap's 304-1 through 26, and the whole purport of pleadings:

"A. A. A. A.A.c. (hereinafter referred to as a "non-party company") is a company established on October 30, 2003 to engage in a business related to BB Round Co., Ltd. (BB), a multi-level marketing company. BB established six branches in Gangnam-gu, Busan, Gwangju, Incheon, Daejeon, Daegu, and Daegu, and operated 62 centers across the country. The non-party company operated its business through BB's branch offices and center, and did not have a separate branch offices and center, based on the results of the purchase of goods, the two companies maintained and managed the organization of the sales division through the organization relationship between the sub-subsidiary and the sub-subsidiary.

C. On the basis of a prospectus or a basic lecture distributed at the headquarters by each center, the non-party company recruited new sales clerks by holding a business explanation meeting to invite their salespersons to join, and the Plaintiffs were employed as the sales clerks of the non-party company.

D. BB sold health food, etc. mainly because the sales amount was limited to not more than OOO won according to the laws and regulations related to multi-level marketing business. The non-party company, which had no such restriction, sold the non-party company's products such as 1.16% of the sales price. The sales price of the products sold by the non-party company was only 1.16% of the sales price. The non-party company's sales price only purchased the products to increase the performance, there was no particular interest in the performance, quality, or price of the products. In general, most of the sales price of the goods orders to the head of the center, etc., rather than individually select the products, but the non-party company did not have any particular import personnel other than this commodity sales.

E. Since then, when the non-party company discontinued the payment of the remuneration to the salespersons, some of the sales clerks of the non-party company filed a complaint against the non-party company for fraud, etc. On June 2007, the non-party company's headCC and DoDD was detained on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Door-to-Door Sales Act, etc. around October 30, 2007, and sentenced 9 years imprisonment and 5 years imprisonment to the Seoul Central District Court 2007 High Court 207 High Court 525 on October 30, 2007, and the above judgment was finalized on June 12, 2008 (Seoul High Court 2007OOO) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2008 OOOO).

F. Meanwhile, between April 2006 and April 2007, the non-party company reported and paid each value-added tax to the tax authorities from January 1, 2006 to January 2007. On March 16, 2009, the non-party company filed a claim for correction against the tax authorities for the total amount of value-added tax of the value-added tax from January 2006 to January 2007.

G. Accordingly, the pertinent tax authorities rendered a disposition rejecting a request for correction against the non-party company to the effect that the non-party company supplied the goods purchased by the non-party company to the salespersons upon receiving the price constitutes subject to the taxation pursuant to Articles 6 and 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “each of the instant disposition of rejection”). The non-party company filed a request for a tax trial against each of the instant disposition of rejection on August 7, 2009. However, the tax Tribunal dismissed all the appeals against the non-party company on the ground that the transaction form between the non-party company and the salesperson is somewhat different from the ordinary transaction on March 9, 2010, because the transaction form between the non-party company and the salesperson is not different from the ordinary transaction, the non-party company’s sales of the goods to the multi-party salesman constitutes the transaction subject to the imposition of value-added tax. Each of the above decisions

(i) On June 4, 2010, the non-party company filed a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of each rejection disposition of this case with the Seoul Administrative Court 2010 GohapOOO, which sought the revocation of each rejection disposition of this case. On February 23, 2012, the above court accepted the non-party company's claim on February 23, 2012, and accepted the non-party company's transaction form in order to pretend the supply of goods, and the substance of the transaction between the non-party company and the salesperson was merely a money transaction that attracting investment funds and paid investment allowances. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the supply of goods subject to value-added tax had been made. Thus, the non-party company calculated the tax amount by including the sales amount from the transaction with the salesperson at the time of filing the initial value-added tax return to the tax authority in the tax base. Since each rejection disposition of the tax authority on the premise that the initial rejection disposition of the non-party company's value-added tax return is legitimate, the court rendered a judgment revoking all its rejection disposition (hereinafter related judgment).

(a) The primary claim

The Plaintiffs solicited Nonparty Company or BB to pay and use part of the goods purchased from Nonparty Company or BB free of charge to its subordinate business operators, which constitutes advertising and publicity expenses, etc., and the remaining goods constitute sales and publicity expenses, etc., and collected part of the purchase price by disposing of them as salt prices to the intermediate seller. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs

"If a multi-level marketing salesperson, such as the plaintiffs, is registered (hereinafter "general registration") pursuant to Article 7 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act"), it is naturally recognized as a business operator even if each of the plaintiffs does not file an application for business registration. In this case, the plaintiffs can be a simplified taxable person who is not eligible for the refund of value-added tax, but if the plaintiffs actually run a wholesale business as above, it shall be deemed as a general taxable person eligible for the refund of value-added tax in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation." Thus, the defendant shall refund the difference between the value-added tax (sale tax) for the year 2006 and the value-added tax (purchase tax) for the above period prepaid by the plaintiffs through the non-party company or BB, since the plaintiffs had lawfully filed a tax base return with the National Tax Service from April 18, 2011.

(b) Preliminary claim

Since the plaintiffs suffered enormous damages due to the acts of fraud of the non-party company, they have the right to claim damages against the non-party company due to nonperformance of obligations or illegal acts. Meanwhile, according to the relevant judgment, the non-party company holds the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the UOO won against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs can exercise the right to claim the subrogation against the defendant in order to preserve the damage claim against the non-party company, which will occur in the future

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment that the defendant should pay to the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main defense of the conjunctive claim

"The obligee's subrogation right can be exercised by the obligee only when the obligor does not exercise his/her right against the third obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008DaOO, Mar. 12, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 92DaOO, Nov. 10, 1992). "the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself" means that the obligor has the right against the third obligor and the obligor is able to exercise his/her right, but does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself. The purport that the obligee is in a situation where he/she can exercise his/her right by himself/herself is a variety of problems that make it impossible to exercise his/her right by law, and there is no real obstacle to the obligor itself, and the obligor does not exercise his/her right by himself/herself until the obligor does not exercise his/her right by subrogation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008OOOOO91, Feb. 25, 1992).

(1) Article 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 206; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act") provides that a person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of the existence of profit-making profit is liable to pay the value-added tax pursuant to this Act. Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that a person who starts a new business shall register with the head of the competent tax office within 20 days from the date of commencement of the business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 17 (1) of the same Act provides that a person who is a multi-level marketing salesperson's general sales business operator's general sales business operator's general sales business operator's general sales business operator's general sales business operator's sales business operator's general sales business operator's sales business's total sales business's sales business's sales business's total sales business's sales business's sales business's total sales business's sales business's sales business's total sales business's sales business'.

(3) In addition, even if the supply of goods appears to exist, it cannot be deemed that there was the supply of goods which are the cause of the imposition of value-added tax if it can be deemed that there was only the receipt of investment funds without the transaction of the goods. Whether the supply of the goods is reasonable or the supply price of the goods is an intention of the person who receives the supply, and whether there was an estimate to recover the investment funds between the parties, it is necessary to separately and specifically determine the amount by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du060 delivered on December 24, 200). Since the tax amount of the goods to be traded between the plaintiffs and the non-party company is unreasonable after the 20th return date, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ request for the return of value-added tax under the previous provision of the Framework Act on National Taxes was made within the scope of 5th return date after the 20th return date for the goods purchased from the non-party company, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs were obligated to pay the goods to purchase the goods.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims in the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in its entirety, and all of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.