Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap4504 ( October 23, 2009)

early 2007west0815 (Law No. 29, 2007)

The legitimacy of the assertion that it is merely a working party at the construction site rather than an independent business operator;

It is reasonable to view the construction cost as the subcontractor who entered into a labor subcontract agreement as the receipt of a promissory note, and there is no data that can be viewed as an employee employed by the non-party company, such as entering into a labor contract or

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 shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the plaintiff on January 5, 2007 shall be revoked in full for the second term of 202, 56,851,640 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2003, 25,493,240 won for the second term of 203, 42,192,610 won for the second term of 203, 46,396,950 won for the second term of 204, and 16,514,370 won for the second term of 204, and 5,963,750 won for the first term of 205.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: “1,343,071,264 won” in Part II of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “1,343,024,625 won” in Part II of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the following (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the column for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

B. Additional determination

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

This AA subcontracted the part of the instant construction, which was subcontracted to ○○ District New Apartment Construction, and the Plaintiff did not directly receive a subcontract, while the Plaintiff was working as the head of the Working Group for the ○○ District Construction Work, and accordingly, the △○ District Construction Work was imposed a value-added tax on the part of the ○○ District Construction Work.

(2) Determination

갑 제3호증의 기재와 □□세무서에 대한제출명령의 회신 결과에 의하면, 소외 회사가 이AA에게 지급한 철근공사 금액의 합계액이 1,343,071,264원에 이르는데, 위 합계액에는 ○○지구, ▽▽지구, ♡♡지구의 각 철근공사 금액이 포함되어 있는 사실, □□세무서는 2007. 8. 10. 이AA에 대하여 위 합계액을 부가가치세의 과세표준에 반영하여 누락된 매출세액을 경정 ・ 부과한 사실이 각 인정된다.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the non-party company paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 1,343,024,625 to the part of the steel construction for the construction of the △△ District and the ○○○ District. According to the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the non-party company paid the Plaintiff the above KRW 1,343,071,264 paid by the non-party company to thisA and the above KRW 1,343,024,625 paid by the non-party company to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the non-party company's payment to thisA was included in the part of 1,343,071,263 of the ○○ District New Construction Work, it is not related to the part of the ○○ District New Construction Work performed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.