Incheon District Court 2012Guhap1406 ( November 30, 2012)

early 201J 3369 ( December 14, 2011)

The proprietor who performed the instant construction work is the Plaintiff.

(1) In light of the fact that the original contractor did not pay the construction cost to the owner while the Plaintiff was performing the instant construction project by subcontracting the construction project, and that the original contractor did not pay the construction cost to the owner, and that the principal contractor entered into an agreement with the owner on the settlement of the price, and received a part of the construction cost directly, the Plaintiff is the business owner who performed the instant construction project.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu1050 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1406 Decided November 30, 2012

July 17, 2013

August 21, 2013

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 shall revoke the imposition of the second-year value-added tax OOO on March 2, 201 against the plaintiff on March 2, 201.

This court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition as the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.