Whether a business operator is an independent supplier of services;

The number of working days and daily allowances of other workers after receiving compensation from the company, which appears to have been paid in installments, is reasonable to deem that it is a subcontractor who has entered into a subcontract with the company.

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 disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 31,369,750 for the first term of November 1, 2006, KRW 35,078,210 for the first term of January 2004, and KRW 1,002,520 for the first term of January 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From March 25, 2003 to April 1, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) performed the construction work in the part of steel bars (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) among the ○○○○○ Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that was contracted from ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and the construction work in the ○○○○○ Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant construction work”); and (b) received payment of KRW 495,93,891 from the Nonparty Company in return.

B. The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction project from the non-party company and did not report and pay the value-added tax, upon deeming the Plaintiff as the non-party business entity and ex officio registered the Plaintiff as the non-party business entity. On November 1, 2006, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 31,369,750 for the first term of November 1, 2003, KRW 35,078,210 for the first term of January 2004, and KRW 1,02,520 for the first term of January 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-16, Gap evidence 7-1-3, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is obvious in light of the fact that the head of the Working Group on the Iron Construction at the construction site of this case (the 's continuous breakdown'), as the head of the Working Group on the Iron Construction, was under the supervision and direction of the head of the field office in accordance with the work process of the non-party company as well as other persons, and the plaintiff received wages of the said members as a representative for convenience and paid them to each person, and in addition, it is obvious that the non-party company has dealt with the labor volume of the said members collectively. However, the defendant's disposition of this case, which reported the plaintiff to an independent business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) between the non-party company and the construction period for the ○○○○ Dong ○○ Korea Stop Construction Works during the instant construction period from May 1, 2003; (b) the scope of the construction period for the steel, concrete and non-form construction; (c) the sewage level contract amount to KRW 51,061,30; and (d) the wage payment terms to be paid for the work by the 30th day of the preceding month. The Plaintiff drafted each contract for the supply and demand of construction (i.e., evidence 5-1 to 3) each month by determining to be paid according to the progress payment paid by the non-party company to the non-party company. In fact, the Plaintiff received wages from the non-party company several times from September 9, 2003 to June 22, 2004. The non-party company prepared and issued the receipt of wages (Evidence 5-4 to 7).

(2) During several times from December 23, 2003 to July 23, 2004, the Plaintiff received wages from the non-party company for the steel part of the steel construction work of ○ apartment construction in the Mapo District among the instant construction work, and received wages from the non-party company to the non-party company at the bottom of each wage execution statement (Evidence No. 5-8 to 14). On April 1, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted and issued a wage receipt (Evidence No. 5-15) to the non-party company.

(3) At the request of the non-party company, the Plaintiff organized and issued a copy of the identification card of the part-time employee, and submitted a statement of on-site labor expenses (A evidence 4-1-18) in the course of national tax assessment.

(4) According to the earned income data (Evidence No. 5) by the withholding agent for the year 2003 of the non-party company, the plaintiff is not employed as the employee of the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-4 through 15, Gap evidence 6-1 through 16, Eul evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above facts, between March 25, 2003 and April 1, 2005, the plaintiff received a total of KRW 495,993,891 from the non-party company for the construction work of this case, and it appears that the number of working days and daily allowances of other workers were determined and paid in installments. If there are such circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is the subcontractor who entered into a subcontract for the construction work of this case between the non-party company and the non-party company at least as the subcontractor who entered into the contract for the construction work of this case. It is reasonable to deem that the non-party company paid wages after deducting the amount equivalent to the Gap's age limit for each person of the construction work of this case for the convenience of tax processing and calculation, or Gap's evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 18, Eul evidence 5-14, Gap evidence 8-1 through 34, and evidence 12-2 are insufficient to find that the non-party company was a worker employed by the plaintiff company.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate for the defendant to consider the plaintiff as "a person who supplies goods or services independently for business" under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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