공사의 실제 시공자가 명의위장사업자라는 사실을 알았다고 봄이 타당함[국승]
Daejeon District Court 2008Guhap3953 ( October 17, 2009)
Cho High 208 Before 1922 (Law No. 26, 2008)
It is reasonable to see that the actual contractor of a construction project is a nominal contractor.
It is reasonable to view that the other party to the transaction knew that the actual contractor is a nominal contractor in view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the fact that he/she provided construction services after paying a comprehensive construction business license fee.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 49,241,910 won for the second term of 2004 against the plaintiff on March 10, 2008, value-added tax of 1,640,810 won for the first term of 2005, global income tax of 6,400,000 won for the second term of 204, and global income tax of 2,200,000 won for the second term of 205 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
The reasons for this decision are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition. (However, the entries of No. 3, No. 18, No. 19-1, No. 4-1, No. 4-1, No. 5-1, and No. 6-1, of the judgment of the court of first instance among the judgments of the court of first instance, shall be dismissed.)