부가가치세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 15, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the building of 7 stories underground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the building of 244.7 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, and the 244.7 square meters in reinforced concrete tanks on its ground.
B. The Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name as “C”, the location of the place of business as “the location of the real estate No. 1 of this case”, the type of business as “real estate/ lodging business, category of business: leasing/n”, and the opening date of business as “lease 15, 2003”, and thereafter, had engaged in real estate rental business using the real estate No. 1 of this case since that time.
C. At the time of November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff exchanged between the mother of D, who was a lessee, with E, the instant real estate and the instant building of 195 square meters in size f.195 square meters in the middle-gu, Daejeon, and its ground reinforced concrete and mentmen’s store/office room/office room/house-based 5th floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant second real estate”) and sold the instant first real estate in KRW 1.5 billion for the purpose of using it in the real estate registration, etc., and the sales contract was concluded to sell the instant second real estate in KRW 50 million in terms of KRW 20 million.
On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business as to the business registration under the above paragraph (b), and registered the business by making the trade name “A”, “A”, “the location of the pertinent real estate”, and “business type: Real estate business, type: Lease.”
E. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Daejeon Regional Tax Office that “A transferee of the instant real estate No. 1 runs accommodation business, not a real estate leasing business.” On the ground that the transfer of the instant real estate among the instant real estate No. 1 constitutes “supply of goods subject to value-added tax”, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 118,636,520 for value-added tax 2, 2012 calculated by deeming the transfer value of the instant real estate No. 1 to be KRW 1.5 billion.
F. The plaintiff is therefore entitled.