A. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on March 14, 201 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 201, exceeding KRW 000,000, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 50% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on March 14, 201 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 201 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The following facts shall be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purpose of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), in which there is no dispute between the parties or between them.

[1]

0 On September 6, 2006, the Plaintiff completed business registration with its trade name as a welfare center for the aged and operated the welfare facility for the aged.

0. On the other hand, on June 26, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s HuB et al. held a general meeting of promoters to establish the “CC Medical Foundation” (hereinafter “the medical corporation of this case”) under the Medical Service Act, and on July 30, 2010, the Pakistan market permitted the establishment of the medical corporation of this case, the representative of which is HuB pursuant to the Medical Service Act.

[2]

0. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to make a spot contribution contract with the medical corporation of this case, and to contribute all of the business of the above elderly welfare center operated by the Plaintiff in kind to the medical corporation of this case.

0 The assets of the above elderly welfare center were 000 land owned by the plaintiff, 000 land, 000 land, and 000 land (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"), and above 000 land buildings, and above 000 land buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case") and cash 200 million won. The above 0th spot contribution contract agreed that the plaintiff contribute the above assets to the medical corporation in this case.

O) On the other hand, the debts of the above elderly welfare center were KRW 000,000, which the Plaintiff created and borrowed the right to collateral security in the future of the Korea Livestock Cooperatives in the land of this case and the building of this case.

0 The above contract for contribution in kind was agreed by the medical corporation of this case to accept 000 won of the above debt.

0 The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 7, 2010 with respect to the instant land and the instant building in accordance with the said spot contribution contract.

[3]

O The defendant, the plaintiff supplied the building of this case to the medical corporation of this case, and judged that the plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax, and the tax base is the average of KRW 000 and KRW 000, which are the values appraised by two appraisal corporations.

0. Accordingly, on March 14, 2011, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the imposition of KRW 000,000 and KRW 000,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff supplied the building of this case to the medical corporation of this case, which is a public interest organization, without compensation, there is no value-added tax liability.

Even if the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied the instant building without compensation, and the tax base of the value-added tax shall be KRW 000,000,000,000, which is the part corresponding to the instant land and the instant building, divided according to the value of the instant building, and calculated by deducting KRW 200,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the Plaintiff supplied the instant building to the medical corporation, and the medical corporation of this case decided to take over the liability of KRW 000,000, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied the instant building without compensation. Since the Plaintiff supplied the instant building to the medical corporation of this case, the tax base should be the average value appraised by two appraisal corporations as the market price of the instant building.

3. Determination

(a) Gratuitous supply;

(1) 「부가가치세법」 (2010. 12. 27. 법률 제10409호로 개정되기 전의 것， 이하 같다) 제1조 제1항 제1호는， 재화 또는 용역의 공급에 대하여 부가가치세를 부과한다고 규정하였다. 한편으로 「부가가치세법」 제12조 제1항은， 다음 각 호의 재화 또는 용역의 공급에 대하여는 부가가치세를 면제한다고 규정하면서，▲ 제13호에서， '토지'를 규정하고，▲ 제19호에서， '국가， 지방자치단체， 지방자치단체조합 또는 대통령령으로 정하는 공익단 체에 무상으로 공급하는 재화 또는 용역'을 규정하였다.

Article 39(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22578, Dec. 30, 2010; hereafter the same shall apply), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide for medical corporations under the Medical Service Act.

(2) 앞서 인정사실에서 본 바에 의하면， 원고가 「의료법」 에 의한 의료법인인 이 사건 의료법인과 사이에 '사업포괄 현물출연 계약서'를 작성하여，▲ 원고 소유의 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 건물 및 현금 2억 원을 이 사건 의료법인에 출연하고，▲ 원고가 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 건물에 관하여 근저당권을 설정해 주고 대출받은 채무 0000원을 이 사건 의료법인이 인수하기로 약정하였다. 그렇다면 원고는 이 사건 의료법인이 채무 10억원을 부담하는 것을 조건으로 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 건물을 이 사건 의료법인에게 증여하였다고 할 것이다.

(3) In the case of a gratuitous and non-consumed contract, and a non-consumed gift, the gift is not in a quid pro quo relationship with respect to the gift, and a non-consumed gift is neither a bilateral contract nor a quid pro quo contract, nor a sub-coned gift. However, even if there is no quid pro quo relationship between the donor and the donee, it can be deemed that there is a quid pro quo relationship within the scope of the donee’s burden, so that it should be treated as equivalent

As a result, Article 559(2) of the Civil Act provides that the donor is responsible for the same security as the seller within the limit of the seller's burden, and Article 561 of the Income Tax Act provides that when the donee takes over the obligation of the donor, the part equivalent to the amount of the obligation of the donor in the amount of the donation shall be considered as the actual transfer of the property (Article 88(1)), and the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the taxable value of the gift tax shall be the total amount of the donated property as of the date of donation less the amount taken over by the donee as the total amount of the donated property (Article 47(1)).

(4) Thus, when the Plaintiff donated the instant land and the instant building to the instant medical corporation, it is necessary to treat the instant medical corporation, which is the donee, as equivalent to a paid and bilateral contract, within the limit of one billion won, the obligation that the medical corporation, should take over. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied the instant land and the instant building to the instant medical corporation without compensation within the said obligation.

(b) Tax base;

(1) 앞서 본 바에 의하면，▲ 원고는 이 사건 의료법인이 채무 000원을 부담하는 것을 조건으로 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 건물을 이 사건 의료법인에게 증여하였고，▲ 위 채무 0000원의 범위에서는 원고가 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 건물을 이 사건 의료법인에게 무상으로 공급하였다고 할 수 없다. 그런데 원고가 이 사건 토지를 이 사건 의료법인에게 공급한 것에 대하여는 유상으로 공급한 것인지 아니면 무상으로 공급한 것인지에 관계없이 「부가가치세법」 제12조 제1항 제13호에 따라 부가가치세가 면제된다.따라서 원고가 이 사건 건물을 이 사건 의료법인에게 공급한 것에 대하여는，무상으 로 공급한 범위에서 「부가가치세법」 제12조 제1항 제19호에 따라 부가가치세가 면제 되고，위 채무 0000원의 범위로서 무상으로 공급하였다고 할 수 없는 범위에서는 부가가치세가 면제되지 않는다.

(2) If so, the value-added tax base for the Plaintiff supplied the instant building to the medical corporation of this case, and the above debt 000 won should be divided according to the value of the instant land and the instant building.

In relation to this, the Plaintiff asserts that 000 won, which was deducted by the Plaintiff from the above debt 000 won, to the medical corporation of this case, should be divided according to the value of the land of this case and the building of this case, should be the value-added tax base.

The above debt 1 billion won, the plaintiff established and borrowed a collateral security on the land of this case and the building of this case, and the plaintiff donated the land of this case and the building of this case to the medical corporation of this case on the condition that the medical corporation of this case bears the above debt 1 billion won. Thus, in calculating the value-added tax base on the supply of the building of this case, the above debt 1 billion won which the plaintiff contributed to the medical corporation of this case cannot be deducted from the above debt 200 million won. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) According to the above evidence, the average of the values appraised by two appraisal corporations is 000 won, and the building of this case is 000 won, and the building of this case is 000 won, and the part of this case, which is divided according to the value of the land of this case and the building of this case, constitutes 00 won (=00 wonx00 won + 000 won).

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff’s supply of the instant building to the instant medical corporation, the tax base is 000 won above, and the Plaintiff’s calculation of value-added tax that the Plaintiff should pay according to the said tax base is 000 won in total of KRW 000 and penalty tax 000, as stated in the “justifiable tax amount” column, and the portion exceeding the above KRW 000 among the instant disposition of KRW 000 is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by accepting all the plaintiff's claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendant's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.