beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 1,131,30 on February 8, 2013 against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2013 and KRW 1,130 on January 201.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
A. The Plaintiff is a person who has registered his/her business under each of the trade names, “C” and “D,” in the Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan City.
B. Under the premise that personal services provided under the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant personal services”) constitute “job placement services” as a value-added tax-free business, the Plaintiff did not report and pay value-added tax equivalent to the amount of sales account statement issued by C during the first half of 2008 and from 2010 to the first half of 2012.
C. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from September 6, 2012 to October 10, 2012, determined that the Plaintiff engaged in human resources supply business, which is a taxable business, under the trade name of “C”, and determined that the amount of income was calculated by including the value-added tax 1,131,30 won in the sales tax base of “D” operated by the Plaintiff; on February 8, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax 42,885,220 won in the year 2010, the value-added tax 131,92,540 won in the year 2010, the value-added tax 248,03,280 won in the year 2011, the value-added tax 163,420,780 won in the year 201, and the value-added tax 163,420,780 won in the year 2011.
(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.
The Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review on November 23, 2012, which was prior to each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on January 17, 2013. The Plaintiff filed a request for a tax review again on April 22, 2013 regarding each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on July 12, 2013.
【In the absence of any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole oral proceedings is legitimate, and the plaintiff's argument that the whole oral proceedings are legitimate, the plaintiff introduced and arranged the employment of daily workers to the job offerer companies, followed the amount of 10% of the wage by being transferred en bloc to the job offerer companies on a monthly basis according to their request and the delegation by the daily workers, and paid the remainder as daily allowances to the daily workers.