공동사업자에게 연대납세의무를 부과한 부가가치세 등 부과처분 취소[국승]
Cancellation of imposition disposition, such as value-added tax, on joint and several tax liability;
The rights and duties related to a joint project are substantially and economically attributed to joint business operators, so it does not violate the substance over form principle to jointly impose the joint tax liability for value-added tax arising from the joint project.
Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The part that exceeds the stated amount in the "tax amount claimed to constitute the portion of the plaintiff's share in the imposition of each corresponding amount stated in the "tax amount" column in the business year stated in the "business year" column in the attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance that the defendant rendered to the plaintiff on June 11, 203 is revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why a party member should explain concerning the instant case are as follows. This case is referred to in Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment except for the dismissal of the judgment of the first instance court as follows.
[Attachment]
C. Determination
In the case of a joint business, since all joint business operators have close interests and the rights and duties concerning a joint business are attributed to the joint business operator substantially and economically, it is recognized that the joint tax liability of the value-added tax arising in relation to the joint business is the joint business operator and the joint business operator is also the joint business operator, and it cannot be a arbitrary discrimination that lacks rationality when compared with the sole business operator, and the value-added tax is the business operator that creates and controls value as a kind of consumption tax recognized by the person having the ability to pay taxes in relation to the purchase and consumption of goods or services. On the other hand, the "individual who has acquired value" as a kind of income tax derived from human revenue tax, and the income tax is the taxpayer and the taxpayer of the income tax should not be deemed the same two compared groups in essence as the taxpayer of the income tax and the taxpayer of the value-added tax. Thus, the above legal provision does not violate the constitutional equality rights or the principle of tax equality.
In addition, since the added value related to a joint business is generated from the whole joint business, the above legal provision that recognizes the taxable capacity of joint business operators as joint business owners and imposes the joint tax liability of value-added tax on joint business operators, not only the legal form but also the economic substance, does not violate the principle of substantial taxation.
Furthermore, in order to grasp the substance of a joint business and to secure the claim for value-added tax, the above legal provision recognizes the appropriateness of legitimacy of the purpose and means of the joint tax liability of a joint business operator and satisfies the minimum requirements of damage by opening a possibility of excluding the application of the above legal provision through a court ruling in the case where the joint business operator is not a substantial joint business operator, and even when comparing the disadvantages suffered by the taxpayer by performing the public interest of securing the collection of value-added tax due to a joint business and the performance of the joint tax liability for value-added tax due to a joint business, the requirements of balance between the legal interest and the legal interest shall not be violated (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ba70, Jul. 27, 2006).
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.