2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with OB Co., Ltd. to purchase 1001-13 OCC 311-13, and 194 stores (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial buildings”) from OOOO, and paid the down payment OOO in the same day the sales contract to pay the sales amount to DD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Construction”), which is the priority beneficiary, as follows (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial sales contract”). < Amended by Act No. 7873, Jul. 22, 2005; Act No. 7874, Jul. 22, 2005; Act No. 7679, Jul. 22, 2005>

Classification

Contract deposit

part payments

Balance

Jinay

Date of payment

contract terms

July 22, 2005

August 5, 2005

Building expenses, site expenses, and value added tax;

Amount paid

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

General OOOO

B. The Plaintiff failed to prepare any balance after the due date for the payment of the balance under the sales contract of the instant shopping mall, and entered into a sales contract for the sales right of the instant shopping mall with the consent of DD Construction on September 12, 2005 to sell the instant shopping mall to the EE Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE consulting”), and transferred its right on September 30, 2005 (hereinafter “the sales right of the instant shopping mall”).

C. After that, on November 3, 2008, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant commercial building in order to operate real estate sales business, etc., and concluded a sales contract for the Plaintiff, and concluded that the Plaintiff did not report the value-added tax on the portion of the instant commercial building among the commercial buildings subject to taxation while transferring its position as a purchaser, etc. as provided in the above paragraph (b) but did not report the value-added tax on the portion of the building (including additional tax) in 2005.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 6, 2009 on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 22, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether real estate is subject to value-added tax consisting of “real estate sales business” as part of “real estate sales business” shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by taking into account: (a) real estate trading is for profit; (b) the acquisition and holding of real estate by a transferor; (c) the existence of the transfer; (d) the number of times and mode of transfer; and (e) continuity and repetition of the transfer to the extent that the transfer can be seen as business activities; and (e) the determination shall take into account not only the transfer of real estate concerned but also all the circumstances surrounding the transfer at the time of transfer during the entire real estate owned by the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14526, Feb. 23, 193; 2010Du29192, Feb. 28, 2013).

B. Examining the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) in light of the aforementioned legal principles after comprehensively taking account of the individual evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act of selling the instant shopping mall to EE consulting on the ground that the purpose of acquiring the instant shopping mall was to sell or lease it to many and unspecified persons, even if the transaction size and transaction amount of the instant shopping mall was significant, the Plaintiff’s act of selling the instant shopping mall in EE consulting on the purpose of profit or continuity and

In contrast, the instant disposition that reported was unlawful.

(1) According to the sale and purchase contract (No. 2) between the Plaintiff and EE consulting on September 12, 2005, the object is 1001 and 194 stores (referring to the attached list). The supply amount is the same as the purchase price of the instant commercial building by the Plaintiff. The supply amount is the same as the purchase price of the instant commercial building by the Plaintiff and the maximum FF verification note (No. 3-2): the location of the object: 1001 and 194 stores: the Plaintiff’s confirmation letter (No. 3-1), and the Plaintiff’s preparation document (No. 3-1), all the rights and obligations of the real estate purchaser under the name of EE (ju) consulting (representativeF), but the sale amount of the sales contract is the same as the purchase price at the request of the largest F, but all the parties to succession are stated as (No. 193) EES, 1018 GG, 1018, 901).

In light of the above, while the Plaintiff sold the instant commercial building to EE consulting as a single-time transaction, it seems that only the Plaintiff prepared the instant commercial building in the name of KimGG, YH, and ESS at the request of the largest FF.

(2) Although the Plaintiff stated in the written confirmation (No. 3-1) that “I confirm that there was a fact that the Plaintiff reported value-added tax pursuant to the modified contract in the transfer of real estate right to purchase and sell real estate,” the said phrase does not exceed the meaning of “I did not report value-added tax”, and whether the Plaintiff is liable for the payment of value-added tax should be determined in the instant case.

(3) Although the application for the registration of the business on October 7, 2005 under the name of the plaintiff (Evidence A No. 12) was submitted to the defendant, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal (Evidence A-2 of the Evidence No. 4-2 of the Evidence No. 5), it seems that the plaintiff would have entrusted the plaintiff to the tax agent and requested the plaintiff to prepare and submit the application for the registration of the business operator under the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seems not to have any reason after concluding the contract for the transfer of the right to sell the commercial building of this case with EE consulting on September 12, 2005, after the conclusion of the contract for the transfer of the right to sell the commercial building of this case, it seems that there was no reason for the plaintiff to apply for the registration of the business operator under the name of the plaintiff, including the part of the plaintiff's signature written in the application, each contract (Evidence A, 2-1 to 2-1 to 5), written agreement (Evidence A), confirmation (Evidence A-3-1 of the evidence No. 3-2), etc.

(4) There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had had conducted another real estate transaction at the time before or after the instant commercial transaction.

(5) As the Plaintiff was unable to prepare a balance in the situation where the intermediate payment was already paid, the circumstances for selling the instant commercial building sales tickets to recover the investment amount are peeped, and the instant commercial building is the only real estate for the Plaintiff’s business purpose, and it seems that the Plaintiff has waived its intended business by selling it.

(6) The Plaintiff did not gain any profit by selling the instant shopping mall.

(7) In selling the instant shopping mall in EE consulting, the Plaintiff did not have engaged in business activities such as advertising for trading or installing and operating the office or utilizing the sales broker, etc.

3. Conclusion

The decision of the first instance court different from this conclusion shall be revoked, and the disposition of this case shall be revoked.