The legality of the disposition imposed on the actual contractor of the building of this case by deeming the plaintiff as the plaintiff

In light of the fact that the registration of a construction business has been lent, and the fact that the plaintiff received the construction cost from the owner of the building, the actual contractor of the new construction of the building of this case is legitimate for the disposition.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2002 (16,952,00 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 201 (25,452,00 won) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs heating system business with the trade name of ○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong.

B. As the owner of one parcel of ○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○-dong, a contractor entered into a construction contract with the contractor as ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., by constructing a building on the ground level 1 and 5th above the ground level (hereinafter “instant building”). Upon receipt of the tax invoice issued by ○○ Integrated Construction, the contractor filed a return on the refund of the relevant input tax amount when filing a return on the said input tax amount for the first and second years in 201.

C. The Defendant conducted a on-site verification of the value-added tax refund of Y○○○○, and determined that the actual executor of the instant building is the Plaintiff, and that Y○○ paid KRW 340 million to the Plaintiff five times from May 15, 2001 to November 14, 2001, and accordingly, issued the instant disposition imposing the instant disposition imposing the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 16,952,00 for the first term portion of year 2001 and the value-added tax of KRW 25,452,00 for the second term portion of year 201.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on September 30, 2002, but the objection was dismissed on November 4, 2002. On January 30, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on January 30, 2003, but was also dismissed on October 28, 2004.

[Grounds for Recognition] A. 1-2, B.3.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○ General Construction is the actual contractor who carried out the construction of the instant building by being awarded a contract for the construction of the instant building from ○○○○○, and the Plaintiff only managed and supervised all acts related to the said new construction on behalf of ○○○○○. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions by the Defendant that deemed the Plaintiff as the actual contractor for the new construction of the instant building is unlawful.

(b)a recognition;

(1) On July 200, ○○ General Construction was established for the purpose of civil engineering, construction work, telecommunications construction work, and was found to have issued sales tax invoices on the construction work of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○, and was found to have leased the name of the construction business to the owner of the building, and issued the sales tax invoices on the construction work of 6 buildings. In addition, ○ General Construction was found to have moved the place of business around the beginning of 2002 but did not report it to the competent authorities. 10 items of taxes notified at the district tax office after June 30, 201, 145,717,670 won and was disposed of as a result of contact without paying contact.

(2) According to the contract agreement on the instant construction project between ○○ and ○○ integrated construction (A13), the contract date for construction work includes: (a) May 4, 2001; (b) May 18, 2001 to November 30, 2001; (c) construction cost is KRW 451 million; (d) electricity and civil engineering works are excluded from construction work; and (e) Pursuant to the said contract, ○ integrated construction reported Red○ as an on-site agent at ○○○○○ Office for the same period; (b) Red ○○ was either paid from ○ integrated construction or subscribed to the national pension; and (c) national health insurance was also an individually provided policyholder at the time.

(3) The Plaintiff, while staying at the site of the instant new building construction project, introduced and supervised the construction project of the instant building to ○○○, and selected a subcontractor, etc., the Plaintiff paid 2.4 million won out of the construction cost to the Plaintiff, and the construction cost transferred to ○○ General Construction Account was paid to the Plaintiff directly to the subcontractor by managing the bank account of ○○ General Construction Account.

(4) The following are the particulars of payment made from May 15, 2001 to November 14, 2001 by Ma○○○.

first day; and

amount of gold

Method of payment

May 15, 2001

10 million won

Transfer to an account

6.14

30 million won

Transfer to ○○ Comprehensive Construction Account by the Plaintiff

September 6, 2001

70 million won

Transfer to ○○ Comprehensive Construction Account by the Plaintiff

September 29, 2001

10 million won

○ ○ Payment in cash to the Plaintiff

November 14, 2001

40 million won

Voluntary ○○ transfers money to the Plaintiff’s account

December 5, 2001

150 million won

Transfer by ○○○ to ○○ Comprehensive Construction Account

(5) However, on January 13, 2001, prior to the conclusion of the construction contract on the building of this case, the Plaintiff deposited money deposited in the said account in one’s own account (○○-○-○-○-○-○-○) with the head of ○○○ Construction (○○-○-○-○) from around January 13, 2001, prior to the conclusion of the construction contract on the building of this case, and deposited money deposited in the said account, and transferred money deposited in the said account to the ○○○ Construction Account. On June 14, 2001, the KRW 30 million transferred to the Nonparty’s company account was deposited in KRW 294 million, and on December 5, 2001, no transaction was made in the said account with the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○ Construction Account.

(6) On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax against the Defendant, the actual executor of the instant new building construction project was lost on the ground that he was the Plaintiff, and the final appeal became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] Eul 4-1, 2, 5, 5, 6, 7-1, 2, 8-2, 10-1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 15-1 through 14, 16, 18, 19-1, 2, 3, 20, 21, 20, 21, 15-1, 15-2, 16, 18, 19-1, 20, 20, and 21,

C. Determination

According to the above facts, since the actual executor of the construction of the building of this case is the plaintiff, the disposition of this case imposing value-added tax on the construction cost of KRW 340 million, which was paid by the pregnant ○○○, omitted from the report by the plaintiff, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.