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

A. Since 1999, the Plaintiff is a corporation that has been engaged in the manufacture and sales of steel and non-ferrous metals from 000 to 1999, and real estate leasing business.

B. On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred personal and material facilities and all rights and obligations directly related to the instant transfer business, which the Plaintiff had engaged in, to BB materials corporation (hereinafter referred to as “transferee”), and to the pipe-type and steel materials manufacturing business (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transfer business”).

C. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff considered the transfer of the above business to the transferee as the comprehensive transfer of the business subject to non-taxation of value-added tax and did not issue a tax invoice, and the Defendant considered the above transfer as the supply of general goods, not the comprehensive transfer of the business, and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax amounting to 00 won. Among them, the transfer of inventory assets constitutes a low price transfer for the related corporation, and on March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a notice of imposition and notification of corporate tax amount of KRW 00 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 7, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and on May 23, 2012, the said request was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key business division of this case transferred by the plaintiff is a strong manufacturing business that is not an important element of the business, so it can be always conducted in a place other than the original manufacturing place, and even if a business is conducted by cutting the manufacturing place, it does not impede the maintenance of the unity of the business, so the transfer of the business of this case except for the land and buildings used in the place of business constitutes the transfer of the business that does not constitute the supply of goods under Article 6 (6) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, but the disposition of this case on the premise that the transfer of this case constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

(1) From June 25, 1999, the Plaintiff mainly engaged in the manufacture and wholesale of pipes and steel products, and around May 2009, entered into a business comprehensive transfer agreement with the assignee to transfer the subject of the transfer, and on May 14, 2009, transferred the subject of the transfer (other than land and buildings used as a business place) of this case to the assignee on July 1, 2009, and the object of the transfer is as follows.

(1) Limits to take over machinery, such as lighting fixtures and gold equipment, which are major manufacturing equipment.

(2) Full succession to skilled craftsmen production skills.

(3) Full succession to business organization

(4) Limits on the rights, obligations, human resources, etc. of customers

(5) Transfer of claims and obligations related to business, such as inventory assets excluding inventory of goods related to partial iron bars, sales claims, sales liabilities, and retirement benefit allowances.

(6) Cash and deposits, securities, and investment assets not related to the business, which are excluded from those subject to acquisition.

(2) After transferring the subject of the transfer to the assignee, the Plaintiff leased the land and factory building located in the Busan-dong OOdong, Busan-dong, OOdong, 000 (hereinafter “instant land and factory building”) used by the Plaintiff as its workplace to the assignee, and the assignee runs the business subject to the transfer from the instant land and factory building.

(3) According to the Plaintiff’s financial statements made on December 31, 2008, the value of the instant land is KRW 000, and the value of the factory building is KRW 000, and the above factory building is installed with strong manufacturing facilities.

(4) On the other hand, according to the Plaintiff’s 2008 Statement of Loan Interest on Non-Business Real Estate, etc., the Plaintiff reported the instant land and factory buildings as real estate irrelevant to its business for 2008.

[Grounds for recognition] The non-speed facts, the entry into the 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The term “transfer of business” under the main sentence of Article 6(6)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to a comprehensive transfer of physical, human, rights and obligations, etc., including business property, by place of business, to replace only the managing body while maintaining the unity of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17895, Dec. 24, 2008).

(2) Comprehensively considering the above facts and arguments, the following circumstances are acknowledged as a whole, i.e., ① the land and factory buildings in this case at the time when the existing corporate tax return was filed, classified them into business assets other than business assets; ② the land and buildings in this case are land for factory, and the building in this case on which the above ground are located. Thus, the land and buildings in this case can be seen as the business assets directly used for the plaintiff's strong manufacturing and sale; ③ The river manufacturing factory in this case requires a large number of machinery and equipment, such as crasss and presses, in line with the size of the factory and the strong production, which are difficult to cost and effort to move separately, and even if it is possible to use the previous house before and after this age, the land and buildings directly used for the business of this case and the building for the business of this case, which are not directly related to the business of this case, are not established at the time of the transfer of the new maximum debt amount, and the transfer of the land and the building in this case can not be seen as 00.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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.