Whether it is an independent business operator who has been awarded a contract for construction work

The plaintiff was actually engaged in construction work while running the construction business, and the plaintiff received money from the owner from time to time and directly paid the labor cost to daily workers who collected, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction work, not for the employed relationship, if the payment for the completed portion of the construction work is included.

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

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term portion of 2002 imposed on the Plaintiff on March 7, 2007 by the Defendant and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2002 and value-added tax for the second term portion of 202 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or recognized by each entry of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, 2-2.

A. On September 2002, 100, 2002, ○○○-dong 265-○ 282.8m2 (hereinafter “the instant building”) had been constructed and sold.

B. During the investigation of capital gains tax on the party’s ○○, etc., the Suwon Tax Office confirmed that the party’s ○○, etc. paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 122,55,000 from January 2002 to September 2002 with respect to the construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”), and notified the Defendant of such fact.

C. Accordingly, on March 7, 2007, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the instant construction by ○○○, etc.; and (b) imposed KRW 20,214,780, and value-added tax for the first term portion in 2002 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant disposition) 1,856,240 for the second term in 200k (hereinafter the instant disposition)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive a contract for the instant construction in the capacity of a business operator, but worked as a daily employed worker at the construction site at that time and paid the same person’s wages for convenience from the owner of the building, etc., and thus, the instant disposition that reported the Plaintiff to an independent business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, and Eul evidence 6-2, and the witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's testimony in whole.

(1) On August 30, 1997, the Plaintiff completed business registration with the trade name of ○○ Construction, and closed business on October 31, 2004, and thereafter, the details of the value-added tax return are as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

(2) On the other hand, on July 7, 2006, under the investigation of the above 1.B. by a tax official on the said 1.B., he stated the following as to the costs incurred in the construction of the instant building:

(A) The instant construction was contracted from January 2, 2002 to September 11 of the same year.

(B) Although there is no contract for a few years, there is a lot of construction work (No. 5) and a deposit sheet (No. 6-2). The amount of construction work is 122,55,000 won.

(3) The Plaintiff recruited daily workers at the ○○○○’s request, and received total of KRW 122,55,000 from 1.2. January 2, 2002 to 11.9.11.00 in cash, bills, etc. on several occasions, and settled daily workers’ labor cost, equipment cost, material cost, construction cost, etc. with the said money.

(4) In addition, on December 21, 2002, the Plaintiff issued a receipt under the name of the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff received part of the construction price to the Plaintiff.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes regardless of whether they are for profit, is liable to pay value-added tax under this Act.

(2) The following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition of Paragraph (b) above, i.e., the plaintiff was actually engaged in construction work in the taxable period of the instant disposition (the first, second, second, 2002 period portion). The plaintiff received money from the owner of the building from time to time and directly paid labor costs to his daily workers. In addition, if the payment for the completion of the instant construction work is included, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was a contract for the instant construction work, not for the relationship employed by the owner of the building, etc., but for the instant construction work. Accordingly, it is insufficient to reverse this only based on the statement of No. 4-1 to 4 and some testimony of the witness ○○.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff constitutes a person who supplies goods or services independently for business under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.