Whether to be viewed as business income or business income for the supply of services (Judgment of the court below)

The imposition of value-added tax is unreasonable because it is merely a daily worker who provides labor on a daily basis, as in the form of daily wage, as in other daily workers.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are deemed not to include the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

* Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu19421 (O. 10, 2006) Decision

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 200 on January 7, 200 on the Plaintiff and the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 200 on January 7, 200, and value-added tax for the first period of 201 on the Plaintiff shall be revoked in all.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows: (a) the part on "2.c. judgment" (from No. 3, No. 25 to No. 4, No. 12) among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, (b) it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. Determination

The "person who supplies goods or services independently in business" means the person who supplies goods or services in the form of business to the extent that the added value can be created and who continues to and repeated intent, and the burden of proving that the plaintiff constitutes the above person liable for tax payment is the defendant who is the tax authority.

그러므로 이 사건에서 원고가 독립한 사업형태를 갖추고 ◯◯개발로부터 공사를 하도급 받아 자기 책임 하에 이 사건 공사를 시행하는 등, 공사용역을 공급한 사업자에 해당하는지 여부에 대하여 본다.

이에 관하여 피고는, ◯◯개발의 장부에 의하면 ◯◯개발이 원고에게 '기성금'이라는 명목으로 2000. 12. 30. 44,000,000원, 2001. 4. 19. 5,000,000원을 각 지급한 점(을 제3호 증의 1,2), ◯◯개발이 원고에 대한 근로소득세원천징수를 이행하지 않은 점(을 제4호 증의 1 내지 8, 변론 전체의 취지) 등에 비추어 원고가 독립한 하도급업자일 뿐 근로자가 아니라고 주장하나, 위와 같은 사정만으로 원고가 ◯◯개발과 사이에 하도급계약을 체결하였다거나 독립한 사업자라고 인정하기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

오히려, 갑 제4호 증의 1 내지 22, 제5,6호 증의 각 기재, 제1심 증인 ◯◯◯, ◯◯◯, 의 각 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고 역시 다른 일용근로자와 마찬가지로 ◯◯개발에 고용되어 회사로부터 작업지시 등 지휘감독을 받으면서 종속적인 관계에서 노무를 제공하고 보수를 지급받은 사실(다만 그 노임은 편의상 다른 일용근로자들의 것을 포함하여 근로일수에 따라 일괄 수령하였다)을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고 역시 일용근로자에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

그렇다면, 원고가 ◯◯개발로부터 이 사건 공사를 하도급 받아 독자적으로 시공하였다거나 부가가치세 납세의무자인 사업자에 해당한다는 전제에 있는 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 하겠다."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just because it is consistent with this court's conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.