1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the building of the gas station in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon (hereinafter “instant gas station”) under the name of the Plaintiff. On November 10, 2010, the Plaintiff completed business registration under the name of the Plaintiff. Since that time, the Plaintiff operated the gas station in the name of the Plaintiff. On January 17, 201, the Plaintiff changed the name of the business operator of the gas station to E, the Defendant’s birth.

B. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a demand for the payment of the amount in arrears of value-added tax as indicated below from the Korea Asset Management Corporation, which was entrusted by the head of Seoin Incheon District Office to collect the amount in arrears.

(Amount in arrears is as of August 1, 2016). The fact that there is no dispute over the total amount of value-added tax for the principal of the principal tax due to the payment deadline of the amount in arrears, as of March 31, 2012; the fact that there is no dispute over the main tax due of the amount in arrears; the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7; and the purport of the whole pleadings; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) With the Plaintiff and the Defendant, only the name of business registration of the instant gas station is the Plaintiff. The actual operation of the gas station in this case is the Defendant. Accordingly, when the value-added tax is imposed on the sales of the gas station in this case, there was an agreement by the Defendant to pay the amount corresponding to the value-added tax, so the Defendant should pay the amount corresponding to the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant should pay KRW 375,376,8

B) Even if the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of value-added tax is not acknowledged, in light of the principle of substantial taxation, the above disposition was rendered against the Defendant, who actually operated the gas station in this case, even though the above value-added tax should be imposed, and thus, the Defendant should return the amount in arrears of value-added tax to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. (ii) The Plaintiff was registered as a delinquent taxpayer on January 30, 2013 due to the delinquency in payment of damages and consolation money, and thus, financial transactions and credit cards such as bank use.