Whether it is a daily worker at the construction site or an independent business operator;

The disposition imposed on the business entity who provided services independently, unless it is found to be a worker, is legitimate.

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.

Purport of Claim

The Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 15,92,380, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on January 4, 2007 (as soon as possible, seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 9,372,952 remaining after reduction according to the determination of the request for review).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the tax investigation into ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Development”), the director of the ○○ Tax Office deemed the Plaintiff as the contractor of the third ○○ Apartment Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) among the construction works of the third ○○ Apartment Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction works”), and notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming the Plaintiff as the contractor of the steel bars and concrete part. The Defendant, on January 4, 2007, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 15,92,380, the value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”).

B. On January 19, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. On April 23, 2007, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision that the instant disposition should be corrected by deducting the above amount since it exceeds the supply price of KRW 50,960,000.

C. On July 12, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant rendered a decision to reduce KRW 6,619,428 of the instant disposition on August 2, 2007 in accordance with the purport of the said decision of review.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff received wages as a representative by engaging in the same work as that of other persons at the construction site of this case, it is unlawful to impose taxes on the Plaintiff by deeming it as a business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, 203 and December 25, 2003, the plaintiff received 72,490,000 won from ○○ Development to 80,00 won for the construction work of the instant construction work, the steel bars and concrete construction work of this case, and paid 72,490,00 won for the construction work of other workers, after determining the number of working days and daily allowances. In addition to wages, it can be acknowledged that other workers have received a lump sum payment of expenses for meals, steel products, and equipment. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is a contractor who has entered into a labor subcontract for steel bars and concrete construction work of this case between ○○ Development and the instant construction work of this case. Unlike the above, unless the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with ○○ Development or paid income tax on wage and salary income, it is justifiable to view the plaintiff as a person who independently supplies goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

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

annex. Relevant statutes

○ 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 for profit-making purposes (hereinafter referred to as "business operator") shall be liable to pay value-added taxes

○ Decision and Correction Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of the place of business, shall, upon the investigation of the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax refund for the taxable period, make a decision or correction, only where a business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where the value-added tax is likely to be evaded due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.