사업의 동일성이 유지되지 않은 사업의 양도는 포괄적양도양수에 해당하지 않음[국승]
Cheongju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-1699 ( April 23, 2015)
Cho Jae-chul2014 Before 2423 ( November 03, 2014)
Transfer of business which does not maintain the identity of the business does not constitute a comprehensive transfer or takeover.
Although it was reported as an all-inclusive transfer and takeover, the transferee did not meet the objective requirements for the comprehensive transfer and takeover of the business, such as not maintaining the identity of the business by leasing after transfer and takeover of the business, and thus does not constitute the transfer and takeover of the business.
Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2015Nu10545 disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.
Park 00
00. Head of tax office
Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Guhap1699 Decided 23, 2015
December 16, 2015
oly 2016.13
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on March 19, 2014 by the Defendant is KRW 133,43,200.
(2) The disposition of imposition shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
이 법원의 판결 이유는 제1심 판결의 이유 제4면 제5행의 "증인 김@@의 증언"을 "제1심 증인 김@@의 증언, 당심의 00구청장 및 kk세무서장에 대한 각 사실조회회신결과"로, 제6, 7행의 "14호증의 각 기재 및 증인 김00의 증언"을 "14 내지 16호증의 각 기재 및 제1심 증인 김00의 증언"으로 각 고치는 외에는 제1심 판결의 이유와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 인용한다.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.
Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.