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

The reasons for this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the judgment of the court of first instance is " July 11, 2006" as " July 10, 2006."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Although the Plaintiff and ○○ Shipbuilding entered into a contract for the instant landscaping work in the same line with ○○ Nam-si, the relationship between the construction was terminated between the suspension of the construction due to the demotion, and thereafter, Kim○-ray independently performed and completed the instant landscaping work from March 2002 to July 7 of the same year, and the Plaintiff only supplied Kim○-ray with landscaping trees (tax-free trees) used for the instant landscaping work. As such, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the premise that the Plaintiff supplied the instant landscaping service jointly with Kim○-ray was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From January 3, 1995, the Plaintiff was running the landscaping tree supply and landscaping business with the trade name of "Segjin Gyeong-jin," but around September 1999, Kim ○ line was in charge of receiving orders and performing construction works, the Plaintiff was in charge of supplying landscaping trees and construction funds, and the Plaintiff was in charge of supplying the proceeds, and distributed the proceeds according to the value of goods and services actually supplied. On October 4, 1999, the Plaintiff changed the trade name to ○nam-do and changed the business registration under the joint name of the Plaintiff and Kim ○-ray.

(2) On October 23, 2001, Kim Jong-soo concluded the following contract regarding the instant landscaping work with the representative of ○○nam-do, which was the representative of ○○nam-do.

· Project owner: ○○ Baler (the per head of the representative director)

· Recipients: ○nam-Gyeong (Representative Kim & Lee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

· Construction amount: 600 million won (excluding value-added tax);

- Construction period: from October 25, 2001 to December 25, 2001 (for two months)

·Payment: In principle, settlement shall be made in cash from the sale price after the completion of construction (within the period of construction) and two times the construction price shall be paid in kind when the settlement is not possible within three months after the completion of construction.

(3) After completion of the above construction, the Plaintiff and Kim Jong-soo filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 1.2 billion with the Incheon District Court on October 18, 2002 (this seems to be the amount equivalent to twice the construction amount under the above payment agreement). The above court issued an order of provisional seizure of claim as of October 21, 2002 with the claim amounting to KRW 1.2 billion.

(4) On February 21, 2003, on the part of the Seoul District Court, on the part of 2003, ○○○○○○○○○○ Company filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 600 million with the debtor, and the above court issued the provisional seizure order on February 25, 2003 with the claim amounting to KRW 175 million with the debtor. The above provisional seizure order issued on the above provisional seizure order on February 25, 2003 by Kim○○○○ Company and the plaintiff jointly entrusted the instant landscaping work, and the plaintiff did not participate in the additional construction contract and did not pay the construction cost even after the completion of each construction work within the construction period. Accordingly, the above provisional seizure order claimed that the amount equivalent to KRW 260 million with its share should be paid in accordance with the agreement.

(5) 한편, 원고가 이 사건 부과처분에 대하여 이의신청 및 심판청구를 제기한 후인 2007. 4. 25. ○우패러다이스의 대표이사 장○균이 마포세무서 공무원에게 작성하여 준 확인서(을 제5호증의 1)에는 2001. 9. 말 강화파라다이스 추모원을 준공하고 분양을 하였으나 분양이 저조하여 이 사건 조경공사를 하게 되었는데, 당시 계약자이던 김○선 이 실력이 좋고 성실하여 공사기간 내인 2001. 12. 25.에 조경공사를 완공하였으며, 공 사 완료 당시 원고가 나타나 공사에 필요한 자금을 자기가 댔다고 나서기 시작했다는 내용이 기재되어 있다.

(6) On April 8, 2003, the Plaintiff agreed with the Korea ○○ Trust Co., Ltd. to settle the construction cost of the instant landscaping project at KRW 356,362,00 and KRW 223,638,000. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 356,362,00 from the Korea ○○ Trust Co., Ltd. on April 15, 2003 in accordance with the above agreement. Meanwhile, the ○○ Trust died on December 15, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the instant landscape project contract was concluded in the name of the representative of ○nam-do, and the Plaintiff and ○nam-do were joint business operators, and the Plaintiff and ○nam-do were operating the instant landscape project together, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a liquidation agreement on the instant landscape project between the Plaintiff and ○○ line with respect to the instant landscape project. The content of the relationship between the Plaintiff and ○○ line is in charge of the construction works and the construction works, and the Plaintiff is in charge of the supply of landscape trees. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff and ○ line were to perform the instant landscape project, even if the Plaintiff were to supply only landscape trees to ○○ line, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied services subject to value-added tax by implementing the instant landscape project as a joint business proprietor is unacceptable.

(2) Furthermore, as seen earlier, Kim ○-mar claimed the amount of the construction cost as the claim amount while completing the construction work within the agreed construction period at the time of the application for provisional attachment. The ○○○○○ representative director of the ○○○○○-mar did not raise any objection thereto. After the Plaintiff raised an objection to the instant disposition, he prepared and issued a confirmation stating that the instant landscaped construction was completed within the agreed construction period. No documents such as construction site, tax invoice, invoice, supply statement, etc. which can prove the supply relationship, such as the progress of construction work at the time of the instant landscaped construction work, landscaping trees, etc. were submitted at all, and most of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff were prepared for dispute after the imposition of the value-added tax in this case, the instant landscaped construction work should be deemed completed within the agreed construction period, barring any special circumstances. No evidence exists to acknowledge that Gap’s evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, and each of the evidence No. 2000 witness or witness of each of the instant case is insufficient, 2000 p.m20.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.