[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1991.7.15.(900),1807]
(a) The meaning of “person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes” as a person liable to pay the value-added tax under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act;
(b) The case holding that a person who provides services and receives fees by entering into a labor contract with another company using only the name of a comprehensive construction company while working in the construction design office does not constitute a taxpayer of value-added tax under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Adde
(a) The phrase “person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes” under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to a person who supplies goods or services for continuous and repeated purposes with a business form sufficient to create a value-added and with a continuous and repeated intention. Here, the continuous and repeated supply of goods or services means that the continuous supply of goods or services is repeated several times, and it cannot be said that there was an intention to continuously supply services even in a case where services are provided with an intention to supply a single service that requires the passage of time;
(b) The case holding that a person who provides services and receives fees by entering into a labor contract with another company using only the name of a comprehensive construction company while working in an architectural design office does not constitute an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services in the form of business continuously and repeatedly so that he may create added value;
Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu629 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985,278) 89Nu2646 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990,812) 89Nu6952 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong190,1176)
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of the tax office of the East Institute (Defendant before the correction; Head of the tax office of the Suwon)
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14214 delivered on September 12, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
A person who supplies goods or services independently from a person liable to pay value-added tax under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to a person who supplies goods or services in the form of a business to an extent that may create a value-added and who continues to provide such services with a continuous and repeated intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu629, Dec. 26, 1984; 89Nu2646, Feb. 27, 1990). Here, the continuous and repeated supply of goods or services means that the continuous supply of goods or services is repeated several times, and it cannot be said that the person has continuously intended to provide services even in the case of providing services with an intention to supply services at a single time required for time.
In this case, the court below held that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff who works in the architectural design office with macroficial evidence only lent the name of the non-party Maddong Construction Co., Ltd. to enter into a labor contract with the non-party Maddong Construction Co., Ltd. and provided services and received compensation, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff is an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services with continuing and repeated intent to create added value. In light of the records, the court below's determination of evidence is just and correct, and the judgment of the court below is without merit since there is no evidence to find the plaintiff as the
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)