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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 10, 2013, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010, the first term portion of value-added tax, the second term portion of value-added tax for 2010, and the first term portion of value-added tax for 201 is revoked.

"A. The Plaintiff: (a) performed contact work at BBE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BE”) that manufactures vessel parts and steel structure; (b) received KRW OE from BBE during the period from July 2010 to July 2011; and (b) the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 of value-added tax on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to report and pay value-added tax by omitting sales even after having received construction payment from BBE as above, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report and pay value-added tax by omitting sales. The purport of the argument is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff determined and notified KRW OE on January 10, 2010, KRW 2010, KRW OOE on January 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”); and (c) the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, No. 1, 4, and No. 1 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff provided labor under the direction and supervision of BB et al., and as a promotion, it only received and divided the wages of the club workers for convenience, and thus, the wage that the plaintiff received constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act, and the defendant's disposition that reported the plaintiff to an independent business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The facts of recognition are as stated in the attached Form 3.3.

1) The Plaintiff, between BBtech and the Plaintiff, was going to work in line with the work volume, and accordingly, agreed to make an oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the workers to receive the payment from BBtech. From July 2010 to July 201, the Plaintiff received an aggregate of the work volume assigned to the Plaintiff and paid wages to the other workers according to the number of working days, and paid the remaining wages to the other workers according to the number of working days.

2) BBE issued a certificate of access to a construction site at the site of the Plaintiff’s personal information, and the worker’s attitude management was not conducted, and the progress of the work was conducted through the Plaintiff and the meeting.

3) The contract for a construction project concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is terminated by paying the construction cost to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is responsible for all labor-management relations, industrial accident, wages, retirement allowances, welfare benefits, etc. to the employees of the Plaintiff, and in any case cannot transfer their responsibilities to BB assessment.

4) There is no fact that the Plaintiff and BBtech have entered into an employment contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 2 of Eul, Witness's Testimony of HighCC, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

“1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances known by the Plaintiff based on the above facts, it is legitimate for the Plaintiff to regard the Plaintiff as “a person who independently supplies goods or services for a business prescribed by Article 2(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same)”, and the Plaintiff supplied workers to BBC, and the Plaintiff received OO OO as a sum of the total amount of work performed by the Plaintiff, and paid wages to workers according to the number of working days, and the remainder was brought up by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s payment received from BBC shows that the Plaintiff’s labor price was more than the Plaintiff’s labor price for the Plaintiff’s work, but rather, it appears that the Plaintiff supplied labor under the management and control of BBtech.

B) Other income under Article 21 (1) 19 (c) of the Income Tax Act appears to be premised on a delegation contract in consideration that a person with professional knowledge or special skill, such as an attorney-at-law, etc. temporarily receives it. Since it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s contract entered into with sexual luminous is a labor contract, the money paid by the Plaintiff from BBte cannot be deemed as falling under other income under the Income Tax Act.

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.