원고는 부가가치를 창출할 수 있는 정도의 사업형태를 갖추고 계속적이고 반복적인 의사로 이 사건 공사 용역을 제공한 자에 해당한다[국승]
Suwon District Court 2015Guhap3687 (Law No. 12, 2016)
The Plaintiff is a person who provided the instant construction service with a continuous and repeated intent with the business form to create added value.
Most of the money paid as the construction cost of this case is deemed to be reverted to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a person who provided the construction work of this case with continued and repeated intent in the form of business to create added value.
Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act
2016Nu64050 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
KimA
o Head of the tax office
October 27, 2016
November 24, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's second added value in September 5, 2012 against the plaintiff on September 5, 2012
The imposition of tax of KRW 15,065,320 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.
1) The Plaintiff corrected the purport of the claim in the trial.
- 2-
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding or closing some of the following, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
○ Following the second 11th “Incompetence,” the second 11th “incompetence, through an objection on December 7, 2012.” The third 10th 3rd 16th Does “Evidence 16 to 16th 19.”
○ “Transferer (Plaintiff)” in column 1 of column 4 of the first page shall be deemed to be “Transferer (OB)”. The following shall be added to the following acts of column 5, 16 of the 4 page 5:
6) The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the largestCC and the OB in collusion with the Plaintiff to evade the tax by making the Plaintiff as the subcontractor and making the Plaintiff pay the value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff was found to have been suspected of having committed a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the lowerCC and the OB were found to have been sentenced to a final decision.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.