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

A. The plaintiff is from September 30, 2003 to May 24, 2006 00 O-dong 00

In the store located at the location, the store was engaged in the retail business of malicious sari, etc. with the trade name of the ‘BBE Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Bad

B. In the course of the investigation into the non-party company, around September 2003, the plaintiff acquired store business rights in 00 won with the non-party company jointly with the non-party company, and around May 2006, transferred the store business rights corresponding to the plaintiff's shares (1/2) to the non-party company, and notified the defendant thereof.

C. On August 18, 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2006 on the transfer of the above store operating right (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and dismissed on November 10, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 5, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The right to the instant workplace was owned by the non-party company, and the plaintiff simply paid rent and lease guarantee, and the money that the plaintiff received from the non-party company at the time of the closure of the instant workplace is not the cost of transferring the sales right, but the cost of transferring the sales right. Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the non-party company by deeming that the plaintiff possessed the Plaintiff’s sales right to the instant workplace and transferred it to the non-party company on the ground of the contract, etc. written by using the Plaintiff’s seal without permission.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, 4, 10, and Eul evidence 12-2, and Eul evidence 13-1 through 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1) On July 30, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of store business rights (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the transfer of business rights”) on condition that the seller enters into a contract with the building owner on condition that the seller would enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of the store business rights, and the seller would enter into a contract for the transfer of store business rights (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the transfer of business rights”) with the former owner of the building on condition that the seller would enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of the store business rights, and the seller would pay the purchase and sale price to the Plaintiff, the non-party company, and the non-party company, and the sales price to the non-party. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17000, Sep. 30, 2003>

(2) From the national bank account of the non-party company on July 30, 2003, 000 won was collected on September 30, 2003, and 000 won was collected on September 30, 2003, which was the remaining payment date under the instant business license acquisition agreement, and Hah was collected on October 2, 2003 in the agricultural bank account under the name of the plaintiff, and Hah was collected on July 30, 200 in the non-party company’s future, and on September 30, 2003, respectively.

(3) On September 27, 2003, when entering into an agency contract with the Plaintiff and the non-party company, in addition to the agreement note (the evidence No. 7, and hereinafter referred to as the "agreement note in this case"), and Article 2 of the agreement note bears one half each of the rights and deposits when entering into the contract with the instant workplace.

The plaintiff stated that the amount of 000 won borne by the non-party company at the time of the right contract should be paid by 0.55% per month. The above 00 won interest accrued from January 1, 2004 to May 15, 2006, and the plaintiff paid only 00 won among them to the non-party company as of May 15, 2006.

(4) On May 2006, the time of the closure of the instant business establishment, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of store deposits and rights to a gift with the purchase price of KRW 000,000 with the non-party company as its agent; and (b) Article 4 of the contract entered into at the time, stating, “In acquiring the instant store by transfer, the non-party company, the transferee of the instant business, entered into a contract on July 30, 2003, “the Plaintiff, the transferor, shall refund 00,000 won out of the investment amount of KRW 00 (00,000, and KRW 00,000,000).”

C. Determination

The following circumstances revealed from the above facts, i.e., ① each contract (Evidence 3 and 4) prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of the contract for the transfer of the instant goodwill and the instant agreement (Evidence 7) or each of the contracts (Evidence 7) signed by the Plaintiff at the time of the contract for the transfer of the instant goodwill and the instant agreement are affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal, and the financial transaction details of the Plaintiff and the non-party company and the details of interest payment are also inconsistent with the contents of the above contract or the agreement. ② The Plaintiff has operated normally for two years and six months after the conclusion of the instant agreement for the transfer of goodwill, and ③ The Plaintiff and the non-party company are joint buyers of the instant agreement for the transfer of goodwill, and the non-party company paid KRW 00,000,000, which is 500,000,000 won of the sales goodwill, and the disposition of this case may be deemed lawful for the transfer of the instant goodwill to the Plaintiff.

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.