Cho High-2016-Seoul Government-2244 ( August 24, 2016)

It is reasonable to view that the service contract of this case was concluded as the plaintiff's agent and its effect belongs to the plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view that BB had expressed the intent to conclude the instant construction contract on behalf of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s agent at the time of the instant service contract, and so long as EE receives it without objection, it can be deemed that both BB and EE were the Plaintiff as the contractor under the instant construction contract.

Articles 3 and 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-9060

AA

aa tax office

on October 28, 2017

on October 26, 2017

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 KRW 000,000,000, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on December 15, 2015, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the main business of man-made fishery and building business.

B. BB entered into a contract for the construction of the EE and bath facilities (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the agent of DDD, who was preparing for women’s exclusive bath businesses in Seoul ○○○○○ 397-4 around early February 2015, and made the CCC, a director of the Plaintiff, appointed the head of the site office to perform the construction work.

다. CCC은 공사를 진행하던 중 주식회사 △△과 ▲▲에너지 주식회사에 보일러 공사 등을 하도급주어 그들로부터 용역 등을 제공받은 후, 2015. 3. 3. 주식회사 △△으로부터 공급가액 10,000,000원의 세금계산서를, ▲▲에너지 주식회사로부터 공급가액 3,000,000원의 세금계산서를 각 발급받았다.

D. After the completion of the foregoing construction, DD paid the amount of the official payment to the bank account of CCC.

E. However, DD filed a civil petition with the head of the competent tax office claiming that the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice on the instant construction contract even though the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract and paid all the construction cost, demanding confirmation of transaction for issuing a purchaser-issued tax amount under Article 126-41 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 14390, Dec. 20, 2016). However, the head of the competent tax office denied the above input tax deduction claimed by D on the ground that the transaction is not confirmed, and imposed the value-added tax for 1st year 2015 on D while denying the said input tax deduction, which is claimed by D for the reason that the relevant transaction is not verified. DD is dissatisfied with the said disposition and filed an objection with the head of the competent tax office on July 2

F. The actual substance of the Korea Customs Service, upon accepting the objection of DDR, confirmed the fact that DDR received the above services, etc. from the Plaintiff, and accordingly reduced the value-added tax amount on January 2015, 2015. Accordingly, on December 15, 2015, the Defendant corrected and imposed KRW 00,000,000 for the first time value-added tax on the Plaintiff in 2015 on the premise that DDR had a transaction between the Plaintiff and DD (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8 through 10, Eul evidence 4, 5, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 CCC 등의 요청에 따라 CCC이 주식회사 △△과 ▲▲에너지 주식회사로부터 공급가액 합계 13,000,000원의 용역 등을 제공받은 거래에 관하여 원고를 공급받는자로 하여 세금계산서를 발급받았을 뿐, DDD와 이 사건 공사계약을 체결한 사실이 없으므로 이와 다른 사실을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of Article 3(1), Article 4(1), and Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act:

A. Services provided to the opposite contractual party on contractual grounds are included in services subject to value-added tax. In this case, BB entered into the instant construction contract with DD and provided services to DD. In order to determine that the Plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax on the above construction services, the Plaintiff should be recognized as a party to the instant construction contract as a party to the instant construction contract.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, it is reasonable to deem that BB entered into the instant construction contract with DD as the Plaintiff’s agent. Therefore, the contractor of the instant construction contract is the Plaintiff. Therefore, the contractor of the instant construction contract where BB had CCC provide CCC to DD, as the Plaintiff’s performance assistant, shall be deemed to have provided BB and CCC to DD, which is the other party to the transaction. The effect of the service provided under the instant construction contract belongs to both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff under the instant construction contract with DD, and the Plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax. The instant disposition based on the aforementioned premise is lawful.

1) BB carried out the name of the actual operator of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s representative director, and delivered that name to the EE of DD’s agent at the time of the construction contract. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem BB to have indicated that the instant construction contract was concluded for the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s agent, and as long as EE receives it without any objection, it can be deemed that BB and EE were the Plaintiff as the contractor under the instant construction contract.

2) The On-site Director, CCC subcontracted to △△△ Co., Ltd. the part concerning the construction of a hot spring sprink and a heating boiler. After the completion of the subcontracted construction, BB entered the above company the qualification of the representative director of the Plaintiff and signed the “written confirmation of the completion of the construction of a hot spring sprink and boiler.” According to the above facts, BB had been carrying out the instant construction with the intent to have the legal effect of the Plaintiff’s representative director, while carrying out the said construction with the intent to have the legal effect of the Plaintiff.

3) The fixed number of the Plaintiff’s representative director was around February 2015, when the instant construction contract was concluded.

EEE에게 원고의 사업장 소재지와 사업자등록번호를 휴대폰 문자메세지로 알려주었다. BBB은 목욕탕 시설 공사의 일부를 △△ 주식회사와 ▲▲에너지 주식회사에 하도급주었고, 그 거래와 관련한 세금계산서는 원고의 허락 아래 원고를 공급받는 자로 하여 발급받았다. 이에 비추어 원고의 대표이사이던 이정수는 BBB이 이 사건 공사계약을 체결하였음을 잘 알고서 그 공사계약의 이행에 협조하였다고 할 것이고, BBB이 실질적으로 원고를 경영하였던 점까지 더하여 보면, 원고 대표이사이던 이정수는 BBB에게 이 사건 공사계약을 체결할 대리권을 수여한 것으로 볼 수 있다.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.