[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1993.7.1.(947),1614]
(a) The meaning of transfer of the business not deemed the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act;
(b) The case holding that it is not a transfer of business subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act because it is reasonable to view that a person who registered a real estate rental business as a type of real estate sales businessman and temporarily leases and transfers a building after constructing a new building;
(a) The term "transfer of business" under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act means the comprehensive transfer of human resources, facilities, rights, and duties, etc. consisting of business property, to maintain business identity, and the business must be able to obtain recognition of social independence by its management body as an organic combination of human resources and physical facilities;
(b) The case holding that it is not a transfer of business subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act because it is reasonable to view that a person who registered a real estate rental business as a type of real estate sales businessman and temporarily leases a building after constructing a new building and transferring the building.
Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of the Tax Office;
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu3467 delivered on November 13, 1992
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 are examined together.
On January 15, 190, the court below held that the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring the above real estate from the above 192m2 to the above 10m2 of the building site in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and then newly constructed the five-story 1,768m25m2 (hereinafter this case’s 1m2) on the ground of this case’s real estate rental business, and the Plaintiff’s act of disposing of the above real estate to the above 1m2 of this case’s real estate on the 190m2 and the above 1m2 of this case’s real estate on the 1m2 of this case’s real estate rental business, and the Plaintiff’s act of disposing of the real estate to the above 6m2 of this case’s real estate on the 1m2 of this case’s real estate rental business, and the Plaintiff acquired each of the above 6m2 of this case’s real estate on the 1m27m2 of this case’s building on the 198m2 of this case’s real estate.
In light of relevant evidence and records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below did not properly conduct the deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the transfer of business under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus,
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)