Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act [Scope of Goods]

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

A. On February 27, 2002, the Plaintiff operated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, and closed the business on February 27, 2002.

B. When investigating ○○○○○○ Stock Company (the trade name was changed to ○○○○ Stock Company; hereinafter “○○○○ Stock Company”), the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 65,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) in return, while transferring the facilities and rights of the instant place of business to the Nonparty Company, and notified the Defendant of the fact.

C. Accordingly, on October 14, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant amount in return for the premium in relation to the instant business establishment; and (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 10,943,630 for the first period of October 14, 2005.

each entry of 1 to 3, 1 to 2, 2 of the evidence of 1 to 3, 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s sales of the instant place of business to Nonparty Company KRW 65,00,000, while the sales amount of KRW 45,000,000, out of the sales amount, received KRW 10,000 as the moving expenses, KRW 10,000,00 as the house expenses, KRW 10,000,00, and thus, the disposition imposing value-added tax is unlawful.

(b)the relevant legislation;

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 1 (Objects of Taxation)

(1) The 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.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 1 (Legal Status of Goods)

(2) Intangible goods under Article 1 (2) of the Act shall include all tangible things other than tangible things having property value such as power, heat or other natural forces and rights which can be managed.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract for all the rights of lease and other business rights between the non-party company and the non-party company on February 26, 2002, and agreed to pay KRW 5,000,000 on the condition that the non-party company did not take over the goods of the workplace of this case, and agreed to pay KRW 65,00,000 on the condition that the non-party company did not take over the goods of this case, and the "facility and right contract between the plaintiff and the non-party company" pay the plaintiff's facility and right transfer proceeds. The plaintiff and the plaintiff transfer and take over the tobacco permission right at the time of remaining settlement.

Under the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the delivery or transfer of goods is the supply of goods for all contractual or legal reasons. The goods include both power, heat, and other natural forces and rights which can be managed as tangible goods and intangible goods having property value. According to the above facts of recognition, the amount in this case is deemed as the transfer cost of the right of lease and the goodwill (including the premium) to the business place in this case. This is the supply of the right with property value, and thus the disposition in this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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