Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff operated ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on July 24, 2001 and received KRW 76,50,000 from ○○○○ Incorporated Company as the price for the transfer of facilities and rights related to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but did not file

B. On November 14, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s transfer of facilities and rights to ○○○○ Co., Ltd. constitutes a supply of goods subject to value-added tax; and (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff on November 14, 2001 the Plaintiff of KRW 6,954, and KRW 695,454, and additional tax on non-issuance of the tax invoice; (c) additional tax on negligent tax returns 695,454; and (d) additional tax on negligent tax returns 4,77,77,73 and KRW 13,123,220 (g).

C. On October 2, 2006, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, upon the Plaintiff’s request for adjudgment, decided to cancel the additional tax on the imposition of value-added tax and additional tax on November 14, 2005, and the Defendant issued a corrective disposition to reduce the tax amount to 12,427,772 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant disposition is unlawful since the filing of an objection under the Framework Act on National Taxes was made within 30 days and the filing of an appeal within 90 days respectively, but all of the aforementioned periods were violated during the pre-trial procedure of the instant case.

(2) It was true that the Plaintiff received KRW 76,50,000 from ○○○ Co., Ltd. while closing down ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. and transferring the store to ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., but this was paid as compensation for damages, moving expenses, future living expenses, and consolation money, and the instant disposition imposing value-added tax is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Additional Tax Act

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

(1) The value-added tax shall be imposed on the following transactions:

1. Supply of goods or services; and

2. Import of goods.

(2) The term “goods” in paragraph (1) means all tangible things and intangible things which have property value.

Article 2 (Taxpayer)

(1) A person who independently supplies goods (referring to the goods prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) or services (referring to the services prescribed in Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) on a business basis, regardless of whether it is on a commercial basis or not (hereinafter referred to as an "business operator") shall be liable to pay value

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

Enforcement Decree

Article 1 (Scope of Goods)

(2) Intangible goods under Article 1 (2) of the Act shall include all tangible things other than tangible things having property value such as power, heat, and other natural power and rights which can be managed.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff sought the revocation of the disposition of this case by the lawsuit of this case, and even if the appeal or the appeal procedure violated the restriction of the trial period, the disposition of this case is not unlawful due to the violation of the restriction of the trial period. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit.

(2) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 201, the Plaintiff sold at KRW 76,500,000 the facilities and rights of the store to ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. on July 24, 2001, and entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff and ○○○ Co., Ltd. to sell the facilities of the store together with all facilities attached to the store on a named date by determining the items for separate transfer. According to the above sales contract, the Plaintiff has the best to renew the title of the lease contract between the store owner and the ○○○○ Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff has the best to renew the lease contract. If it is impossible to secure claims for the lease deposit of the ○○○ Co., Ltd., the sales contract becomes null and void, and the Plaintiff has to immediately return KRW 20,00,000 received for the facilities and premium, and the above recognition is insufficient only on the basis of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Under the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the delivery or transfer of goods is defined as the supply of goods, and all tangible and intangible goods having property value, including power, heat, and other natural forces and rights that can be managed. According to the above facts of recognition, the money received by the Plaintiff from ○○○○ Co., Ltd. shall be deemed as the consideration for the transfer of intangible and intangible property value, such as the right of lease on a store, facilities attached to the store, customer relations, credit and business interest according to the location of the store. This is the supply of rights with property value, and thus, the disposition of this case based on this premise is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu13212 ( November 06, 2007)]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court as to this conclusion is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.