Appropriateness of the disposition imposing value-added tax by independent business operators

He purchased alcoholic beverages from the company from the non-party company and sold them to the packing machine, street store, etc., and directly determined the unit price for supply to the alcoholic beverage purchaser, and if the price is not paid, it shall be deemed as an independent business operator who directly bears the loss incurred therefrom.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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 46,939,670 on June 15, 2005 against the Plaintiff of KRW 46,939,670 on the second quarter of 2001, KRW 58,608,250 on the first quarter of 2002, KRW 44,573,200 on the second quarter of 202, global income tax for the year 2001, KRW 7,262,520 on the global income tax for the year 201, and KRW 11,707,930 on the global income tax for the year 202 is revoked.

.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages to ○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd. and limited-liability companies (hereinafter referred to as “non-party companies”), the Commissioner of the ○○ National Tax Service determined that the Plaintiff employed ○○ and purchased alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 227,315,18, and KRW 322,06,976, and KRW 259,521,649 for the second period of 2002, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data thereof on December 30, 2004.

B. Accordingly, on June 15, 2005, the Defendant imposed 46,939,670 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2001, value-added tax for the second term of 2002, value-added tax for the second term of 2002, value-added tax for 58,608,250 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2002, value-added tax for 44,573,200, global income tax for the second term of 2001, global income tax for 7,262,520,520 and global income tax for the second term of 202 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In around 201 and 2002, the Plaintiff was requested by the non-party company to deliver alcoholic beverages, and was actually employed by the non-party company as an employee of the non-party company, such as delivery of alcoholic beverages, sales transaction specifications, tax invoices, liquor cards, and alcoholic beverage prices between the non-party company and the alcoholic beverage purchasers. Even if the Plaintiff independently operated the business related to alcoholic beverage distribution for the above period, such business constitutes delivery service business, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was an independent licensee of alcoholic beverage sales business during the above period is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

○ Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Value-added tax shall be imposed on the following transactions:

1. Supply of goods or services; and

2. Import of goods.

(2) The term "goods" in paragraph (1) means all tangible things and intangible things which have property value.

○ Taxpayers under Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) A person who independently supplies goods (referring to the goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to the services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) on a business basis, regardless of whether it is on a commercial basis or not (hereinafter referred to as "enterprisers") shall be liable to pay value-added taxes under this

○ Division of Income under Article 4 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(1) Income of a resident shall be classified as follows:

1. Global income:

Finally, the sum of interest income, dividend income, real estate input income, business income, labor income, temporary property income, annuity and other incomes generated in the current year.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As a result of the tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages to the non-party company by the Commissioner of the ○○ Regional Tax Service, it was found that the non-party company entered into a trade agreement with the non-party company in the form of 227,315,188 won in the second period of 201, 322,06,976 won in the first period of 202, and 259,521,649 won in the second period of 2002 in the second period of 202 (hereinafter referred to as “purchase of alcoholic beverages”).

(2) During the above investigation process, ○○○ stated to the effect that he was the Plaintiff on November 29, 2004, who purchased the instant alcoholic beverage, and that he was paid monthly salary from the Plaintiff as his employee during the above period, and that he issued a tax invoice under the name of the non-party company and delivered alcoholic beverages to the non-party company by using the Plaintiff’s vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, and that he was issued a tax invoice and delivered alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff paid all expenses for the said vehicle, as well as paid the cost of supplying the said vehicle, and that he directly carried out the cost of supplying the alcoholic beverage to the purchaser and the cost of receiving them from the large-scale alcoholic beverage buyer. The result of the on-site confirmation conducted by the ○○○○○○-dong 22-2 located in Seoul ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, which was operated by the Plaintiff at that time.

(3) On December 1, 2004, in the process of the above investigation, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate to the effect that ○○○○○ Council, without obtaining a license for alcoholic beverage sales, purchased non-material alcoholic beverages from the persons on his identity, and sold them to nearby establishments and supermarkets, etc., by purchasing alcoholic beverages from the non-party company, sold them to the non-party company on the packing 7th of the same month, and directly determined the unit price for the supply of alcoholic beverages to the liquor supplier, and paid damages directly due to the non-payment of the purchase of the alcoholic beverages in this case, and confirmed that ○○ on May 18, 2005 omitted taxes such as value-added tax.

Evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4-1, 2-1 through 4, 6-1, and 2-1, 6-2, respectively, of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4-1, 3, and 4-1, respectively.

D. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was an independent licensee of alcoholic beverage sales business around 2001 and 2002, and the Plaintiff is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was working as an employee of the non-party company or engaged in delivery service business during the above period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the instant disposition on the same premise cannot be deemed to have been erroneous as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

5. Conclusion

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