The Plaintiff is an independent business entity.

It is reasonable to view that the instant restaurant was operated by an independent business operator subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act by continuously and repeatedly providing food services with the business form to the extent that the added value can be created.

2015Guhap513 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

oly 2016.106

October 27, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition that the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff for the first and second years of 200.0.0.0.0. 200. 200. 1, second and second years of 200. 1, second and second years of 200. 1, second and second years of 200. 1, second and first years of 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a medical corporation BB in the name of AA, ○○-ro, ○○-ro.

cCC (hereinafter referred to as "CC") to enter into a meal service operation agreement with it;

From 200.O.O. to 200.O.O.O.O.O.O., cCC’s internal restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”)

The operation was carried out.

B. The defendant conducted a tax investigation on the plaintiff from 200.0.0 to 200.0.00.

An independent business operator who operates the restaurant of this case, but operates the restaurant of this case and reports business registration and value added tax.

Considering that the plaintiff was not yet registered ex officio, the plaintiff shall be registered as a business operator and 200.0.0

value-added tax on ○○ Won with the taxable period from 200.0 to 20.0.00

The plaintiff requested the pre-assessment review on 200.0.00.0, but the plaintiff made the pre-assessment review.

The defendant made a decision not to adopt 200.0.0.0.

C. As of 200.0.0.0, the Defendant against the Plaintiff on 200.0.0, the first half of 200, the second half of 200.

Sector○○, ○○ for the first term of 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200

Sector○○○, 2000 200 200 200 20 20 20 20 20 20 3 20 20 3 20

The imposition of customs duties was made (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

D. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and requested a revocation trial to the Tax Tribunal on 200.0.0.

However, 200.0.0. was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4

the purpose of the whole pleadings, including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

Operation Principles (Article 5)

4. “A” shall use places and general equipment necessary for providing meals.

and thereafter, in all cases necessary for the provision of meals;

Expenses (including maintenance and repair) for machinery, facilities, equipment, etc.

Safety generated in the course of the use of facilities and equipment with the burden of body;

A civil or criminal liability shall also be responsible for any accident.

Operational Plans (Articles 4 and 6)

2. Eul shall prepare safe food materials selected.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is entrusted to operate a restaurant by CCC and operated the instant restaurant.

In addition, CCC directly operates a restaurant by employing the plaintiff as a management employee.

Since the plaintiff is not a taxable entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act.

2) If the Plaintiff is deemed to operate the instant restaurant on commission, the Plaintiff is deemed to have operated the instant restaurant.

Purchase tax invoices issued in the name of CCC while operating a restaurant shall be the purchase tax amount of the Plaintiff.

In calculating the value-added tax on the plaintiff, it shall be treated as a purchase deduction.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff three times in relation to the operation of the CCC and the instant restaurant in the name of AA.

each hospital meal service contract (hereinafter referred to as "the total of the above contracts") shall be the entrusted operator of the case.

The summary has been drawn up, and the main contents thereof are as follows:

2) From 200.0.0 to 200.0.00, the Plaintiff’s medical corporation BB under the National Health Insurance Act.

The Plaintiff maintained the qualification of the employee insured, and the Plaintiff sought food materials, etc. to be used in the instant restaurant.

After entering the tax invoice, the CCC was issued as an addressee.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence 2, all pleadings

Purport

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is a taxable entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act

In the above facts of recognition, Gap's evidence No. 3 and the whole purport of the pleading shall be added.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as seen earlier, the Plaintiff created a value added from 200 .00 to 200 .00.0

to the extent that it is possible to conduct food services continuously and repeatedly;

of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013); hereinafter the same shall apply.

The former Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu Value-Added Tax Act") is an independent business operator who is subject to taxation and operates the restaurant

It is reasonable to view that it was zero.

① The Plaintiff asserted that it is only a worker employed as CCC, but the instant entrustment.

The operating contract shall be the basic level covered by the ordinary employment contract or concerning the operation of this case.

There is no provision that the performance bonus according to the establishment of the management goal and the degree of its achievement should be paid.

According to the consignment operation contract, the plaintiff shall deposit the restaurant and the collection of the instant cafeteria, etc. (200 billion won).

c.O.O.O.O.00 won is leased to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s food materials cost, personnel cost, cost of household use, clothes, etc.

Expenses, existing equipment management expenses, electricity charges, etc. shall be borne, and CCC shall bear only the cost of maintaining and repairing the building.

all the expenses incurred in the operation of the instant restaurant as described therein;

and responsible to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Plaintiff selected and prepared food materials;

The plaintiff shall compensate the plaintiff for food poisoning, etc. caused by the sanitation of food materials and meal facilities.

authority and responsibility for the purchase of food materials also causes the plaintiff.

shall be deemed not to have increased or decreased the representative, and not to have increased or decreased the representative, depending on the amount of expenses paid.

D. In light of these points, the subject to whom the interest and loss of the instant restaurant accrue shall be CCC.

It is not that of the plaintiff but that of the CCC. The plaintiff cannot be viewed as an employee of the CCC.

② According to the Plaintiff’s financial transaction report in the name of AA, the Plaintiff shall have the CCC.

It received the payment under the entrusted operation contract of this case from the above account and received the payment from the above account.

The expenditure of food materials related to the restaurant, monthly salary of the staff, etc. has been continuously made.

③ The Plaintiff understood the borrowed money as a certificate of a repayment agreement with the Director of the CCC.

It argues that the contract for entrusted operation is prepared, but this contract for entrusted operation is a restaurant.

interest rate, cost, etc. only include the purpose, term of contract, operational principles, settlement of payments, etc.;

There is no indication that the loan is a certificate of agreement on the repayment of the loan, such as the date of repayment, and otherwise, such indication;

There is no material to determine, and instead, the plaintiff is specified in the consignment management contract of this case.

It seems that the restaurant was operated.

④ The Plaintiff as CCC with respect to the expenditure of food materials, etc.

The facts alleged to have been inspected from the date of the Plaintiff, but only the data submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence A 6) alone.

It is not enough to recognize it.

⑤ The Plaintiff paid health insurance fees as a staff member of the CCC, and CCC.

The expenditure of the instant restaurant included in the hospital accounting and the Health Insurance Corporation

CCC directly operated the instant restaurant since it received a restaurant direct operation subsidy.

However, if it is believed that CCC directly operates a cafeteria, it shall be CCC.

Corporation may receive the government subsidy, and the Plaintiff does not pay the value-added tax on the restaurant of this case.

the Plaintiff and CCC seem to have directly operated the instant restaurant.

CCC directly manages the restaurant of this case in light of the fact that the motive to have the appearance is sufficient.

It is reasonable to view that it was fictitious.

2) Whether to deduct purchase data in the name of CCC

Article 16 (1) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

section 17(2)2 of the same Act provides that "the registration number of the recipient" shall be issued.

all or any part of the requisite entry in the tax invoice in accordance with the laws and regulations;

an input tax amount in the case of entry, provided that the input tax amount does not be deducted from the output tax amount.

The input tax amount in such cases as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration shall be deducted, and it shall be delegated to him/her.

former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013)

Article 60 (2) Item 2 of the Act provides that part of the requisite entries of the tax invoice is entered by mistake, but the damage is caused by mistake.

transactions are made in view of other necessary entries or discretionary entries of the tax invoice per tax invoice;

"Cases of confirmation" refers to cases where deduction is allowed (Supreme Court Decision 2016 Decided October 13, 2016).

See Supreme Court Decision 243077.

On the other hand, the entry of the tax invoice under Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is true.

different meaning is that the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is the title of income, profit, act or transaction.

(1) If a person to whom it actually belongs is liable for tax payment, the person to whom it actually belongs

In light of the purpose of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides for the application of tax-related Acts, tax calculation;

(1) The transaction between the parties to the goods or services, the details of which are required to be entered therein;

In spite of formal descriptions of medicine, etc., goods or services are actually supplied or offered.

If the subject and the value, time, etc. are inconsistent with each other, the subject and the time to be supplied shall be the subject and the time of payment (and

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617 delivered on December 10, 1996

In addition, Article 17 subparagraph 7 of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be sold prior to the registration of business.

It provides that deduction shall not be made from the amount of tax.

As seen earlier, the operator of the restaurant in this case shall be the CCC.

Notwithstanding that it is not that of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserts that the input tax should be deducted.

The registration number of the person who receives the restaurant shall be the registration number of the CCC.

F. The registration number of the person who receives the necessary entry of the tax invoice is different from the fact.

not only constitutes an input tax amount which may not be deducted in the course of business registration, but also the plaintiff may conduct business registration.

In this respect, the input tax amount can not be deducted even if it is the previous input tax amount.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is not unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)