Whether the effective owner of the brokerage commission is the effective owner

As long as services related to real estate brokerage are jointly supplied and one of the joint intermediaries has been paid KRW 100 million, even if one of the joint intermediaries has embezzled it, it is merely a debt relationship, and the disposition of value-added tax is legitimate.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2006 in excess of KRW 4,960,90 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From May 10, 200, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name of OO-dong OO-dong 172, 'O real estate agent office'. As a result of the global income tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff, the director of the tax office stated that both OOO, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, arranged the sales contract for OO-dong 519-11 OO2 (hereinafter "the sales contract in this case") on November 4, 2001, and notified the Defendant of the omission of the sales report even if he received the sales commission of KRW 100,000 from the O-dong 519-11 OO2 (hereinafter "the sales contract in this case").

B. Accordingly, on September 8, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,740,000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the second term of 2001 on the omitted amount of sales. Upon the Plaintiff’s request for review of the propriety of taxation prior to taxation, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff’s employees and the New OO jointly mediated the instant sales contract, and determined 50% of the brokerage commission as the Plaintiff’s revenue (amount omitted sales) on January 2, 2006, and imposed the instant disposition of imposing uf09e notice to the Plaintiff for correction of KRW 8,268,180 for the second term portion of 201 on the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2006, but was dismissed on October 18, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 6, 7, and 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of them, the Plaintiff’s revenue amount is KRW 30 million, which is KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was issued jointly by bothO and new OO on January 7, 2002 by new OO and KRW 60,00,000,000,000, which was received as brokerage commission on January 5, 2002 and KRW 20,000,000,000,000, which was received as of January 7, 2002, is merely a re-issuance of the receipt. Even if the new O received as brokerage commission on January 5, 2002, the Plaintiff’s revenue amount is illegal under the premise that the Plaintiff was subject to imposition of KRW 30,00,000,000,00,000,000 from the last O.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 4, 2001, when concluding a sales contract to sell the OO cartel to the buyer of the purchase price of KRW 4,250,000,000,000 for the purchase price, the maximum OO agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 45,50,000 won on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 400,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 3,40,000,000 on January 31, 202. The instant sales contract stated only the Plaintiff’s certificate as the broker in a new OO (a person without a licensed real estate agent’s license who has used the name of the new O, new O, etc.) and the Plaintiff’s employee, who has arranged the buyer of the OO (the name of the twoO, etc.).

(2) On January 5, 2002, the largestO paid KRW 100 million to the newO as a brokerage commission for the instant sales contract, and received receipts from the newO (the nominal holder of the receipt shall be a newO) (the nominal holder of the receipt shall be a newO). On January 7, 2002, the newO and the twoO, who were found to be the office on January 7, 2002, paid KRW 60 million for the remainder of the brokerage commission, and received receipts (the receipt shall be a newO, a newO, and twoO).

(3) The New O and bothO agreed to divide all brokerage fees received from the last O on January 7, 2002, and distributed 30 million won each, respectively. However, the New OO did not pay 20 million won out of them to bothOs in proportion to 60 million won, as the intermediary fees received from the lastO are the 60 million won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 2,3,5, Evidence B, Evidence B 2,3, Evidence B 5-1, 2, and evidence B, each of the testimony of the witness O and the last O

[Evidence Evidence] 4 Evidence No. 4, Testimony of a new witness O

D. Determination

(1) According to the Value-Added Tax Act, a person who supplies goods or services independently on a business basis is liable to pay value-added tax, and the time when the services are supplied is provided or the goods, facilities or rights are used. Thus, as long as the services are supplied to another person upon receiving the price, whether the actual payment has been made may not affect any determination as to whether the obligation to pay value-added tax is established or whether the services are supplied to another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu863, Apr. 25, 1989; 94Nu1446, Nov. 28, 1995).

(2) In the instant case, as long as the twoO assisting the Plaintiff made a joint brokerage of the instant sales contract with the newO to supply the service related to real estate brokerage to the largest O, and the largest O made payment of KRW 100 million, among them, insofar as the newO embezzled the sales contract of KRW 20 million (50 million paid on January 5, 2002) without paying the Plaintiff in proportion to the joint brokerage agreement against the Plaintiff, such circumstance is merely a debt relationship between the Plaintiff and the newO, and it does not affect the establishment of the Plaintiff’s value-added tax liability, and therefore, the instant sales contract of this case premised on the premise that the Plaintiff jointly mediates the instant sales contract and the intermediary fee of KRW 50 million paid by the largestO is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be rejected as it is without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

public official law, order of law,

Article 9 (Transaction Time of Value-Added Tax Act)

(2) The time when services are supplied shall be the time when services are provided or goods, facilities or rights are used.

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

(1) The tax base for value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of values under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply"): Provided, That value-added taxes shall

1. Where payments are given in money, the payments;

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of the competent regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax paid or refunded during the relevant taxable period

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

Article 22 (Time of Supply for Services)

The time of supply for services under Article 9 (2) of the Act shall be as follows: Provided, That if the time of supply for services supplied before closure of business arrives after such cessation of business, the time of supply for such services shall be deemed the

1. End when the provision of services is completed, in the case of ordinary supply.