All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts are recognized in light of the facts acknowledged as Gap evidence No. 1-5, and the purport of this Court's significant facts and changes.

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who sells the consignment products with the trade name “F” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul. During the settlement of accounts in 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 36,315,000 to C, a stock company from December 15, 2017 to December 28, 2017, the purchase tax invoice for C, and D issuance of false tax invoice (hereinafter “instant agreement to issue false tax invoice”); and in return, around December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,00,000 to D, a stock company from December 15, 2017 to December 28, 2017, and KRW 30,000,000 to D, a stock company on January 10, 2018.

B. From December 1, 2017 to December 22, 2017, Defendant C issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 543,940,908 to the Plaintiff.

(c)

Meanwhile, Nonparty G, a real operator of Defendant C and Defendant D Co., Ltd., was prosecuted as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Incentives) by the Seoul Western District Court 2019 Gohap 132, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and fine for two billion won from the above court on May 13, 2020, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Defendant B also received a summary order of KRW 10,000,000,000 as a result of the issuance of the above false tax account statement in collaboration with G, and filed a request for formal trial (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2020, 459, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2020, supra).

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 72,315,00 in total to the Defendants in return for the false tax invoice issued by the Defendants pursuant to the Plaintiff’s agreement on the issuance of the instant false tax invoice, but the Defendants failed to report the sales to the National Tax Service, thereby making the Defendants additionally pay the tax through the revised return of value-added tax. Therefore, the Defendants were unjust profits.