Appellate Court 2013 Deputy 3282

A disposition imposing value-added tax on a business operator who concludes a contract and receives a contract price is legitimate.

There is a fact that a contract for construction work has been entered into with another person and the contract price has been received, and even if there is a fact that the same work price has been distributed to the workers, a disposition imposing value-added tax on the services independently supplied by the business

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap2673 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 24, 2014

May 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first term of 2010 and value-added tax of 0000 won for the second term of 2010 on July 2, 2013 by the former Cheong-gu branch Defendant on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff performed the design work at BB et al. (hereinafter referred to as “BB et al.”) that manufactures vessel parts and steel structures, and received a total of KRW 000 from May 201 to January 201.

B. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 000 for the first period of July 2, 2010, and KRW 000 for the second period of February 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not return or pay value-added tax by omitting sales, even after having received construction payment from BBtech as above (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff provided labor under the direction and supervision of BB et al., and as a promotion, it was only divided by receiving and dividing the wages of workers in the same kind for convenience, the plaintiff's paid wages constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act, and the defendant's disposition that reported the plaintiff to an independent business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff got off workers according to the work volume between BBE and BBE. Accordingly, the Plaintiff made oral agreements with the Plaintiff to receive the payment from BBE. From May 2010 to January 201, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 000 in return for the total work amount assigned to the Plaintiff, and paid wages to the other workers according to the number of working days, and the remainder brought up to the Plaintiff. 2) BBE had the Plaintiff issued a certificate of access to the construction site upon the Plaintiff’s personal information, and the work progress process was not conducted through the Plaintiff’s meeting. 3) The construction contract concluded by BBE with the Plaintiff is terminated by the Plaintiff as payment of the work price to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff cannot be held liable to the Plaintiff and the employer for the labor-management relations, industrial accident, wages, retirement benefits, welfare benefits, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] evidence Nos. 2, testimony by a witness high-CC, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is legitimate for the Defendant to consider the Plaintiff as a “business operator” under Article 2 subparag. 3 and subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and to take the instant disposition. A) The Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff to BBtech, received total of KRW 000 in return for the total amount of the chair’s work assigned to the Plaintiff, and paid wages to the workers according to the number of their respective working days, and the remainder was brought to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appears to have supplied labor for the Plaintiff’s work rather than the payment for the Plaintiff’s work. The Plaintiff appears to have supplied labor for the Plaintiff’s work under the management and control of BBtech. (b) The Plaintiff’s assertion that other income under Article 21(1) subparag. 19 (c) of the Income Tax Act was based on a delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s labor contract constitutes “BB et al.”.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.