2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Conclusion of a sales contract

(1) On May 23, 201, the Plaintiff purchased from the KimCC, KimD, and KimE (hereinafter referred to as "OCC et al."), OO-dong 235-37 square meters, and from 388.8 square meters above the ground reinforced concrete building, one story underground, and five story buildings above the ground (hereinafter referred to as "the contract in this case"). (2) The Plaintiff was not issued a value-added tax invoice (the value-added tax amount corresponding to the value-added value of the building among the OOOO and two other than KimCC and the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value of the building and the value-added tax on it).

(b) Disposition, etc.;

(1) On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for confirmation of the fact of transaction for issuing purchaser-issued tax invoices pursuant to Article 121-4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but, on December 13, 2011, the Plaintiff was notified of the fact of transaction that “the transfer or acquisition of a building constitutes the comprehensive transfer or acquisition of a building” from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(2) The Plaintiff filed an objection, but received a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on March 7, 2012. (3) The Plaintiff dissatisfied therewith, and the Plaintiff filed a request for examination on July 23, 2012, but was dismissed by the National Tax Service on November 13, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, and the whole purport of household materials and the whole pleadings of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including household numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the instant contract is a transaction related to the sale and purchase of a building which is the object of the leasing business, that there was no succession to rights and obligations under the lease agreement between the sub-story and the first floor, and that there is no indication that the sales contract is subject to the separate value-added tax in the sales contract, and that there is no indication that the value-added tax is included in the actual sales transaction level, and that the Plaintiff’s comprehensive transfer of the leasing business from the KimCC and the second person is considered to have taken over the building only, and therefore, it does not constitute the “transfer of business” under Article 6(6)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7,

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of the instant contract

(A) The instant contract provides for the following terms and conditions and special agreements:

○ Terms and Conditions of Contract

- Sales amount: OOO

-OOOOOO shall pay and receive at the time of the contract.

- The part payments OOOO shall be made on July 22, 201.

- The remainder OOOO shall be paid on August 22, 201.

○ Matters of the special agreement

- keep the status of the present facilities on a present condition and not later than the balance;

-The amount including the current lease deposit and offset any balance at the time of any balance (the total amount of the security deposit shall be OOOO(OOOOOO)/monthly OOOOO(s).

- At present, the maximum amount of loans OOOO shall be repaid in any balance.

- Multi-storys and the first floor are to be sold by the seller.

- The balance date shall be set on August 22, 201, but may be adjusted to the first floor and the second floor (before August 22, 2011).

(B) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff agreed that “The Plaintiff succeeds to the obligation to return the lease deposit of the FF commercial lease deposit of the 1st century among the preexisting lease deposit payments, and the FOOO of the 1st century, except the FOO of the FOO of the 1st century, and the GG lease deposit of the 1st century (2nd HO of the 3rd HO in the 3rd level + 3rd level COOOO + 4, and JJOOOO of the 5th level in the JJ).”

(2) The Plaintiff’s rental business

(A) On July 27, 2011, the FFF company, a lessee of the 1st floor, moved its place of business to an OO-dong O-dong 583-19 branch offices. GG electricity of the LL operation, a lessee of the 1st floor, was closed on July 11, 201.

(B) On August 3, 201, the Plaintiff completed its business registration on August 22, 201, 'O-gu O-dong 235-37', and 'real estate leasing business' on August 22, 201, and began its lease business on August 22, 201.

(C) On August 29, 2011, KimCC et al. entered the closure date to the Defendant as the “transfer and takeover” and the “transfer and takeover of the grounds”, and submitted a written declaration of business closure in a public column with the content of business transfer (limited to comprehensive transfer and takeover). However, KimCC et al. and two other parties did not submit a written contract for business transfer and takeover, which are required documents, when they comprehensively transfer and acquire the business.

(D) On October 1, 201, MM Co., Ltd. (representative: Plaintiff) leased the first floor and the second floor of the instant building from the Plaintiff to October 16, 201, respectively, to the lease term from October 17, 2011 to October 16, 2012, and to the lease deposit OOO and monthly rent OOO.

(3) Application for confirming the facts of transactions

(A) On January 3, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for confirmation of the fact of transactions as follows.

1. Personal data of the applicant;

- Name: Plaintiff

- Business attitude: Real estate

- Business Items: Lease

2. Personal information of supplier;

- Name: KimCC et al.

3. Details of application.

- Proceeds from supply: OOO won

- Value of supply: OOO

- Value-added tax: OOO

4. Detailed statement of transactions.

- Trading Date: August 22, 201

- Trade Items: Commercial buildings

- Proceeds from supply (including value added tax) OOO

(B) The Plaintiff: (a) deemed that it is difficult to distinguish the value of the building from the value of the land when preparing an application for confirmation of the fact of transaction; and (b) entered the amount calculated according to the standard market price based on August 22, 201 as the value of the building

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3, 5, and 11, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Article 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013) mean the comprehensive transfer of physical, human, rights, and obligations, etc. including business property, to replace only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business. Thus, the business should be a systematic combination of human and physical facilities so that its social independence can be recognized by being separated from the management body (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du17294, Nov. 29, 2007).

(2) Succession to the obligation to return the lease deposit, (i) the Plaintiff took over part of the obligation to return the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff did not take over the obligation to return the lease deposit for the first floor and the second floor when entering into a trade contract, and (ii) the transferor’s report on closure of business has left the contents of the business transfer described in the case of comprehensive transfer and acquisition in the report on closure of business, and has not submitted the old non-document document. (iii) The evaluation of assets and liabilities and goodwill is difficult to consider the asset assessment and goodwill (in the case of business transfer, customer relations, business confidentiality, management organization, etc.) in the purchase price, and it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff did not bear any other burden than the burden of proof that the Plaintiff transferred the assets, liabilities, or goodwill related to the contract of this case to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not have any other burden than the duty to prove that there is no other provision regarding the transfer and acquisition between the Defendant and the non-party 2 under the contract of this case, and that there is no other burden of proof that the transferee or non-party 2 has any other evidence.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition refusing to confirm the fact of transaction by deeming the business transfer is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.