The legitimacy of the assertion that construction work costs are only received from the representative status of daily workers and are not business operators

In light of the fact that there is a balance between the wages of workers and related expenses in the construction cost, the remaining amount shall be its own income, and the damage was borne by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff independently recruited daily employed workers and determined and paid the said wages, and the non-party company did not take part in it, etc., the Plaintiff is an independent businessman.

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 7 (Supply of 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 value-added tax for the first period portion of 2002 against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2007, each disposition of KRW 11,206,750 for the first period portion of 202, value-added tax for the second period portion of 2002, KRW 34,235,830 for the second period portion of 202, and value-added tax for the first period portion of 203 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In the process of conducting a tax investigation (the target period from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003) on ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (the name of the corporation was changed to ○○ Construction on May 20, 2002; hereinafter referred to as a “non-party company”) (the target period from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003), the head of Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office recognized the fact that the non-party company entered into a construction subcontract with the Plaintiff and paid the amount of KRW 271,00,000,000, and then appropriated

B. The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office notified the Defendant as follows. On January 8, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the said money was the price that the Plaintiff provided and received for the service to the non-party company as the non-party company as the non-party business operator, and imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of 11,206,750 (including additional tax of 5,634,025), value-added tax of 202 for the second period of 200, value-added tax of 34,235,830 (including additional tax of 16,395,376), value-added tax of 1st year of 203, value-added tax of 716,860 (including additional tax of 262,316) on each of the following dispositions (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions").

Taxation Period

Data notified amount

Tax Base

201. 2

(Amount of 8,455,00 won is confirmed, but it is not notified because it is not the period of investigation).

-

1, 2002

61,300,000

5,727,272

202. 2

196,245,000

178,404,545

1, 2003

5,000,000

4,545,454

guidance.

262,545,000

238,677,271

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 3, 2007, but was dismissed on June 28, 2007.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a daily employed worker who is not a business operator, but a representative of daily workers who is called "the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'ex' at the construction site. At the present construction site', most of the construction sites have entered into a labor contract on behalf of daily workers who are employed by the contractor, and provide labor under the management and supervision of the contractor by using materials and equipment provided by the contractor, etc., and wage also has been distributed after the receipt as the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'ex' as the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'ex' is the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the person liable to pay the 'the '

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From October 2001 to December 2002, the non-party company implemented the new construction of rental apartments on a national housing scale at ○○dong in Thaig-si.

(2) Of the above construction works, the Nonparty Company drafted a subcontract for construction works with down payment of KRW 271,00,000 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as to the reinforced concrete construction works.

(3) The non-party company provided materials and equipment necessary for the construction, and supervised the overall construction of the construction, including the air, with a site manager assigned. The plaintiff mobilized the body and carried out the construction, and the number and wage amount of the body to be mobilized was determined by the plaintiff, and paid out the cost of food expenses, etc.

(4) The construction cost as above is determined in proportion to the construction area (70,000 won per square year) and includes all expenses for labor management, such as food, transportation, and lodging, in addition to the wages of workers. However, even if the actual cost exceeds or remains, it shall be attributed to the Plaintiff’s loss or profit, and the non-party company shall pay only the contracted amount as a matter of principle.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 3 through 6-2, Evidence Nos. 2 (in the absence of dispute over the plaintiff's seal image part, the authenticity of the whole document shall be presumed to be established) through evidence Nos. 5, each part of evidence Nos. 8 through 10, testimony by the witness Jin-○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who supplies goods or services independently on a business basis, regardless of whether they are for profit-making purposes, shall be the person liable for value-added tax. Here, a person who supplies goods or services independently on a business basis is the person who provides goods or services in the form of business to the extent that the value-added may be created under his/her own account and responsibility in a state of being legally subordinate to another business, such as employment, and who has continued

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a person who is not subordinate to another business entity and was engaged in providing labor by collecting workers at the construction site. The instant construction cost was calculated based on the size of the construction project. The Plaintiff, when the construction cost received from the non-party company remains due to the payment of the worker’s wages and related expenses, shall be its own revenue, and the Plaintiff was responsible for losses, and the Plaintiff independently recruited daily employed workers, and determined and paid the said wages, and the non-party company did not do so. In light of the above, the Plaintiff appears to have provided services to the non-party company by employing a daily worker under his own account and his own responsibility, rather than the non-party company’s independent business entity, and received the payment.

(3) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff is an independent business operator is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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