The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant (mutual C) provided the Plaintiff (mutual D) engaged in the business of manufacturing the clothing for female use as the wholesaler of the clothing for female use, and the Plaintiff (mutual D) engaged in the business of manufacturing the clothing to the beginning of 2013 to the beginning of 2017, and did not receive a tax invoice while entrusting the business of manufacturing the clothing.

B. On July 22, 2019, the head of the Yongsan District Tax Office issued a prior notice of taxation that the Defendant rendered a decision to notify the Defendant of the omission in cash sales of the value-added tax for the period of one year from January 2013 to January 2017, and notified the Defendant of the calculated tax amount of KRW 34,463,470, and the estimated tax amount of KRW 60,275,150 (including additional tax).

C. From May 4, 2020 to May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,324,700 in total as value-added tax for the year 2013 to 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not include value-added tax on the official fees of KRW 362,143,818, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff from January 2013 to February 2, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim.

The Defendant stated that the value-added tax should be settled separately for the Plaintiff.

B. Where the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree to pay the value-added tax separately from the official fees, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s official fees paid by the Defendant included the value-added tax, barring special circumstances, and on the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Defendant stated that the value-added tax should be settled separately

In addition, the value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s duty of tax payment as a supplier, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant paid the value-added tax instead.

The value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff was paid by the Plaintiff.