Suwon District Court 2007Guhap3041 (2008.06.03)

Review Division 2007-0017 (Law No. 23, 2007)

Whether it is a daily worker at the construction site or an independent business operator;

The disposition imposed on the business entity who provided services independently, unless it is found to be a worker, is legitimate.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 15,92,380 for the second period of 203 to the plaintiff on January 4, 2007 is revoked (it is reasonable that the defendant seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 9,372,952 remaining after reduction by the decision of the request for review).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the third to fourth is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The damaged part;

C. Determination

Article 2 (1), Article 7 (1) and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes regardless of profit-making purposes is liable to pay the value-added tax, and the supply of services is either the provision of services or the use of goods, facilities or rights for all contractual or legal grounds, but the provision of services under an employment relationship does not constitute the supply of services.

According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiff received KRW 50,00,000 from the above 4th day of November 23, 2003 to the above 4th day of December 25, 2003 to the 5th day of 70,000,000 won for the above new construction from the above 4th day of 70,00 won for the first day of 50,00 won for the above construction (the above 4th day of 70,00 won for the first day of 40,000 won for the above construction). The Plaintiff received KRW 7,249,00 won for the above construction from the above 5th day of 40,00 won for the first day of 70,000 won for the above construction (the above 1777,000 won for the first day of 177,000 won for the parking lot and 170,000 won for each 830,000,00 won for each 4.

As shown in the above facts, the plaintiff used the above new construction work with ○○ Development to employ daily workers after setting the contract amount on the basis of the average unit price, etc. of the building area with respect to the construction work of the above new construction work. The plaintiff paid each wage calculated on the basis of the working days and daily allowances to the daily workers mobilized to the above construction work. The calculation and determination of the wage did not participate in ○○ Development. The plaintiff paid the daily workers' food, steel products, equipment, and the cost of the construction work received from the plaintiff. The amount of the construction work paid to ○○ Development was deducted from the construction cost to be paid to the plaintiff. The ○○ Development concluded a labor contract with the plaintiff or daily workers or paid the above money to the plaintiff, and it cannot be found that the plaintiff did not receive the above new construction work income tax. Thus, the plaintiff supplied the above new construction work to the above daily workers and supplied the above part of the service under the Value-Added Tax Act, instead of being employed by the plaintiff from the above daily workers.

law.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.