원고가 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ 대 158.02평방미터 및 그 지상건물 102.81평방미터를 1986. 1. 16. 경락에 의하여 취득한 후 같은 달 22.에 양도하는 등, 1986년부터 1989년까지 사이에 도합 17회에 걸쳐 법원에서 경매하는 부동산을 경락에 의하여 취득한 후 이를 다시 양도한 사실, 그러자 피고는 위와 같은 원고의 부동산 거래행위가 사업활동의 일환으로서 이루어진 것이어서 그중 건물의 양도는 부가가치세의 과세대상이 되는 재화의 공급에 해당하는 한편 위 부동산의 양도로 인한 소득은 사업소득에 속하는 것으로 보고, 해당세법 소정의 절차에 따라 위 부동산 거래로 인한 부가가치세액과 종합소득세액 및 방위세액을 청구취지 기재와 같이 산출한 다음, 1990. 9. 16. 원고에게 위 종합소득세액 및 그에 따른 방위세액을, 그 다음날에 위 부가가치세액을 각각 부과고지한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. The legality of a disposition of imposition.

The plaintiff acquired and transferred real estate temporarily and contingently only once in response to a successful bid of 2,3 times a year, and did not have any continuous and repeated act under the purpose of business with the same place of business or employees, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant continued to engage in the same act under the purpose of business. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and even if the plaintiff's above transaction belongs to the scope of real estate trading stipulated in Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, it is deemed that the real estate is acquired and sold more than once in 1 taxable period for business purposes and more than once in 1 taxable period under the above provision, and therefore, the real estate transfer in the first quarter of 1988 and the second quarter of 1989 does not constitute a real estate trading business under the above provision, and therefore, the part related to this disposition of this case is unlawful.

Since the Plaintiff’s transaction of real estate was conducted as part of its business activities and thus constitutes the supply of goods subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act, and whether the income accrued from the sale of real estate belongs to the business income is to be determined according to ordinary social norms, considering whether the sale and purchase of real estate is for profit, the degree of continuity of the transaction can be seen as business activities, and whether the sale and purchase of real estate is repeated. Thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of real estate at a 2-year auction procedure cannot be deemed to have reached the conclusion of the sale and purchase by 13, 16, 17, 19 through 31, 35, 41, 52, 57, and the total acquisition value of the real estate at the 2-year auction procedure at the 16-year auction period, 2-year auction proceeds should be deemed to have been acquired at the 2-year auction proceeds, 34, 38, 40, 47, 51 through 96, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, under the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed in entirety without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.