Whether it can be seen as the supply of goods in the event of offsetting the original tin incurred from the excavation work with the cost of transportation service.

It is reasonable to view that the original tin incurred from the construction of the ground destruction work is a goods of property value and the equivalent value was offset by the price for the construction work supplied by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor and the price for the transport service provided by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the transport business operator omitted the sale price for the goods equivalent to the value of the original tin’s goods and omitted the cost for the construction work from the subcontractor.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked each disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2006, KRW 245,062,330 for the first term of 201, KRW 69,927,950 for the second term of 2001, KRW 75,650 for the second term of 202, KRW 45,534,750 for the second term of 202, KRW 17,704,620 for the first term of 203, KRW 4,597,380 for the second term of 203, KRW 17,704,620 for the second term of 203, KRW 497,380 for the second term of 203, KRW 1,288,400 for the second term of 204, KRW 4,587,470 for the second term of 204.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in construction business, such as civil engineering works, was awarded orders from ○○○○ Incorporated Company or ○○○○○ Incorporated Company (hereinafter referred to as “subcontract”) to destroy sites at various construction sites, including the construction site of the construction site at ○○ University University at ○○○○ Hospital, and requested ○○○○○ Incorporated Company, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “transport business entity”), which is a shipping agent, to remove earth and sand and tin (e.g., earth and sand, etc.”) generated from the excavation work at the site at the site. In this regard, upon entering into each contract of a construction project with the subcontractor, the Plaintiff determined a different unit price for transportation of stone and tin used as materials for construction works, and issued value-added tax invoices according to the amount determined. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff applied for a return and payment of value-added tax to the Plaintiff; and (b) considered that the amount equivalent to the actual value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added value-added tax should be deducted from the Plaintiff.

C. On September 11, 2006, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the disposition of this case. However, on October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that it was dismissed on October 31, 2007 (based on recognition) [Attachment 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2-1-1, Eul evidence 1-5, and Eul evidence 1-1-5, Eul evidence 9-1-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, who is a construction business operator of the base destruction, has no change in all earth and sand, and the plaintiff, at the lowest cost after obtaining a written estimate from the transportation business operator, has taken out and disposed of the earth and sand and stone, which are the wastes, to the outside, and disposed of them. However, the disposition of this case, which deemed the transportation of wastes as the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, is an illegal disposition that confused between the objects of the transportation service and the supply of goods.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In the event that the Plaintiff receives a subcontract for the ground-breaking work from a subcontractor company, he/she performed the construction work in the order of the ground-breaking work and soil-to-land transport work, and other charnel work. In most cases, the disposal of earth and sand and rock inevitably incurred from the ground-breaking work is selected and processed by a transportation business entity who proposed a low amount of money after receiving a written estimate from the transportation business entity. In the case of tin, the transportation business entity sells the raw materials transported from the present owner of the construction to the aggregate company, as it is processed with tampstones, etc., and thus,

2) According to the subcontract agreement for construction works concluded on November 24, 200 with a subcontractor, the Plaintiff determined the contractual unit price of 4,400 won per square meter, and 550 won per square meter per cubic meter. Furthermore, according to the Plaintiff’s ○○ University Construction Work for ○○○○ Hospital, ○○ University, ○○○ University, ○○○○ University, ○○○○ University, the contract price of 2,760 won per square meter, and 2,880 won, and 2,80 won per cubic meter. On the other hand, the contract price of 280 won per cubic meter and per cubic meter is 30 won per cubic meter, and the contract price of 4,000 won per cubic meter is 5,000 won per cubic meter and per 20,000 won per 5,000 won per cubic meter and per 20,000 won per cubic meter.

3) From July 200 to June 2002, the Plaintiff sold an amount equivalent to KRW 1,019,000,000 generated from the ground-breaking construction work to ○○○○○, a company engaged in ground-breaking construction, and issued sales tax invoices.

4) On May 2006, at the time when the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on this case, the representative director ○○○○, who was the Plaintiff’s representative director, traded on the same condition as the designated sand site in the case of a construction site where ○○○○○, which was the Plaintiff’s site where ○○○ and tin was shipped out to a voluntary site, rather than a designated temporary site. However, ○○, who was used as aggregate materials, entered into a contract with the subcontractor with the subcontractor by estimating the price of tin at a unit price lower than the price of tin (the price at a different price depending on the quality, transaction, regional environment, etc. of tin) and offered the services for strawing. However, without issuing the sales tax invoice for this case, prepared and submitted a written confirmation stating that “the price of tin’s construction work was offset by the price of son’s construction work without the payment of tin. The Plaintiff’s omitted amount of the Plaintiff’s construction work confirmed by the above ○○○, as set

Gu Sector

Sales (Omission of Sale of Construction Work Costs) to a subcontractor

Sales (Omission of Cost of Supply of Raw Materials) to a transportation business entity

Total omitted sales

01. One set;

251,207,850 won

203,963,850 won

455,171,700 won

01.2 2

165,806,00 won

165,806,00 won

31,612,00 won

02. One set;

187,392,00 won

187,392,00 won

374,784,00 won

02. 2rd;

18,180,00 won

18,180,00 won

236,360,000 won

03. 1 set

54,590,000 won

54,590,000 won

109,180,000 won

03.2 2

14,675,00 won

14,675,00 won

29,350,000 won

04. 1 set

4,563,00 won

4,563,00 won

9,126,00 won

04.2 2

16,908,00 won

16,908,00 won

3,816,00 won

Consolidateds

813,321,850 won

766,077,850 won

1,579,399,700 won

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 9-1 to 3, Eul evidence 10-1 to 6, Eul evidence 11-1 to 4, Eul evidence 12-16, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

In the Value-Added Tax Act, goods refer to all tangible and intangibles having property value (Article 1(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act), and the tax base of value-added tax for the supply of goods or services includes "those having financial value in a quid pro quo relationship received from a trader" (Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act). Therefore, in this case, the issue is whether the original seat that the plaintiff requested the shipping business operator to treat is subject to value-added

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the facts as seen earlier, i.e., if the Plaintiff’s own land and tin generated from the subcontracted excavation work are general wastes, the actual transportation cost would be the same, even though the transportation cost would be substantially different. The transportation company receives compensation equivalent to the difference in the transportation cost by selling the tin to the aggregate company and acquiring the price for the sale of the tin, and the Plaintiff sold tin generated from the marry work directly from the aggregate company during the period from July 2000 to June 2002 and filed a report on value-added tax, etc., the tin generated from the marry work is a goods with property value. The amount equivalent to the value of tin generated from the marry work shall be determined by subtracting the amount equivalent to the value of marry work from the marry work, and by prescribing the price for the marry work, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s request for the sale of mar to the subcontractor company and the Plaintiff’s payment for the transportation service from the transportation company.

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on an omitted sales amount equivalent to the original value is legitimate. On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant original value does not constitute the supply of goods subject to value-added tax merely because it is an object of the transport service, which is a waste with no property value.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.