Whether a person is a person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes

In full view of the following: (a) the method of payment of the price; (b) the process of employing the Plaintiff, the process of directly issuing the receipt under his/her own name; and (c) the amount stated in the receipt includes the progress payment for the instant construction; and (d) the amount indicated in the receipt,

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 12,981,810 on July 7, 2005 and KRW 3,569,220 on the second half of 200 on the Plaintiff shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After conducting a tax investigation on ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○○○”) and recovering the omitted amount from sales, and ratification of the corresponding expenses, the head of ○○○○○○○○○ paid KRW 68,00,000 to the Plaintiff during the first period of 2000, and notified the Defendant thereof during the second period of 2000.

B. On July 7, 2005, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as an independent business operator who provided subordinate services, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 12,981,810 and KRW 3,569,220 for the second period of value-added tax in 2000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On September 22, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and received a decision of dismissal on October 24, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 2, 3, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff worked as the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thus, the daily wage was higher than that of other workers. As the duties of the head of the field director, the plaintiff received money from the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and delivered it to the relevant worker as personnel expenses or used it for the settlement of construction expenses, etc., and thus, the disposition that reported the plaintiff

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 5, 200, 2000, ○○○○○○○○○○ was awarded contracts from ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. to each of the gas pipes construction work (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction work”) in each of the gas pipes construction work (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction work”) on April 25, 200 and 476 at the same time on April 25, 200.

(2) Upon the request of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff recruited daily workers, including Kim○○ and Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and received KRW 88,470,00 on 11 occasions from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as follows. Each time, the Plaintiff prepared a receipt in the name of the Plaintiff stating the details such as “on-site payment” and “on-site weather,” and settled the labor cost, equipment, etc. of on-site workers.

fakes

Amount paid (won)

Details of receipts

1

April 22, 2000

2,000,000

○ At the Dong-dong site temporary closure

2

April 27, 2000

1,000,000

On-site provisional payments

3

April 30, 200

1,000,000

On-site provisional payments

4

May 08, 200

4,000,000

On-site provisional payments

5

may 12, 2000

1,000,000

On-site temporary closure (○○ Dong)

6

May 18, 2000

3,000,000

On-site provisional payments

7

may 23, 200

2,000,000

On-site temporary closure (○○ Dong)

8

May 31, 200

7,000,000

On-site provisional payments

9

June 12, 2000

2,000,000

On-site provisional payments

10

June 30, 200

45,000,000

Field flag;

11

July 31, 2000

20,470,000

Field flag;

Consolidateds

8,470,000

(3) The wage and salary income data for each person responsible for collecting withholding taxes for the year 200 by ○○○○○○○○○○’s 200, or the daily wage cost statement for the ○3 Dong from April 1, 200 to June 30, 200 and the 145 site of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ does not include the Plaintiff’s employees or daily workers.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7-1 to 11, Eul evidence 8-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 2000) provides that "any person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of the existence of profit making profits shall be liable to pay value-added taxes under this Act."

(2) In full view of the facts described in the above 2.b. B., the Plaintiff is deemed to constitute a person who supplies goods or services independently for business under Article 2(1) of the Act, taking into account the following: (a) the method of paying the price; (b) the process of employing the Plaintiff Kim○, etc.; (c) the process of directly issuing the receipt; and (d) the amount entered in the receipt

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is without merit.