The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2004 against ○○○ Co., Ltd. on September 1, 2004 in excess of 47,50,206 won among the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 204 shall be revoked.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The part exceeding 47,550,206 won of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of No. 2004 on September 1, 2004 by the Defendant against ○○○○ Co., Ltd. for the second period of No. 73,199,244 shall be revoked. (The Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim in accordance with the Defendant’s disposition of reduction or correction in a trial)

2. Purport of appeal

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

A. On September 26, 1998, ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Company”) was established for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying telecommunications equipment and peripheral devices. On April 13, 2004, the company filed an application for commencement of composition with the Seoul Central District Court and received a decision to start the composition on May 20 of the same year from the same court and on August 16 of the same year.

On September 10 of the same year, the bankruptcy company was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Hahap55, and the plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee, and the defendant dealt with the bankruptcy company ex officio closure on November 11, 2004 as of September 10, 2004.

B. Meanwhile, as a result of the emergency investigation conducted on the bankrupt company from May 3, 2004 to the 24th day of the same month, the Defendant calculated the price of the remaining goods at the time of the closure of the bankrupt company’s business by applying Article 8,336,319,574 won [the price of the inventory assets and the book value of the bankrupt company as of April 30, 2004 (raw materials 5,458,034,745 won (raw materials 5,540,472 won), 405,843,530, 530, 51,698, 1430, 51,698, 51430, 1, 2829, 48, 278, 280, 274, 5034, 5039, 294, 206, 306, 294, 2006, 165.3

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the initial disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap26601, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s inventory assets and tangible assets owned by the bankrupt company were supplied in line with the device produced by the bankrupt company and thus, cannot be used in another company that manufactures the other device, and there is little value of the remaining goods because of the development of new technology, the sale price of the inventory assets and tangible assets of the bankrupt company that was sold and disposed of with permission from the Seoul Central District Court is not more than 523,00 won in total. The tax base of value-added tax for inventory goods of the bankrupt company should be calculated at the market price, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not calculate the market price for inventory goods through the on-site investigation and reported the book value of the bankrupt company as they were at the market

D. After examining the above case, on December 22, 2005, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment against the defendant to the effect that the defendant could not prove the market price of the inventory assets at the time of the closure of business, and that the defendant could not calculate the reasonable amount of tax even upon examining all the materials presented by the parties or by the evidence examination.

E. On August 29, 2006, after filing an appeal, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct the value of the inventory assets and tangible assets sold by the bankrupt company with the permission of the court (the amount calculated by deducting the value-added tax from the proceeds from the sale of tangible assets) and the value of the value of the inventory assets and tangible assets sold by the bankrupt company at the time of closing the gold-type omitted from the above sale as the tax base by reducing the amount of KRW 73,199,244, which is calculated by adding the amount of KRW 731,92,375 to the sum of KRW 256,49,375 as the tax base. Accordingly, the Plaintiff modified the purport of the appeal.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5, Eul evidence 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the gold-type property owned by the bankrupt company is not sold, but can be disposed of because it has no value of realization, the imposition of value-added tax is unfair.

(2) The defendant's assertion

According to Articles 6(4) and 13(1)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, since the inventory goods remaining at the time of the business closure are deemed to have been supplied to oneself and the value calculated by the calculation [the acquisition price of the goods in question X (1-25/100 X)] is deemed to be the market price, the Defendant’s taxation based on the price of gold-type calculated by such a formula is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Key issue of the instant case

In the first instance of the lawsuit in this case, the defendant, in view of the position that the book value of the inventory assets and tangible assets owned by the bankrupt company, rather than the proceeds sold with the permission of the court, shall be deemed to be the market price, and the proceeds from sale shall be deemed to be KRW 523,00,00 as alleged by the plaintiff, and as alleged by the plaintiff, the proceeds from sale shall be deemed to be KRW 475,50,000 after deducting value-added tax (the plaintiff shall not be treated as the tax base). However, in the case of gold punishment, the amount of tax calculated pursuant to the above provisions of this Act is still imposed, and therefore, in the

(d) Facts of recognition;

(1) The bankruptcy company's main business purpose was ○○○○ Mobile Device production and sales business. The bankruptcy company anticipated that the demand in the device sector will occur until 2004 with the adoption of ○○○○○○○ as the standard for the next generation mobile communication technology in 2000. On April 2002, the company developed and manufactured the existing distributed export product focused on the Chinese market, which can be used in China. Since ○○○○○○, a service provider in China, had no choice but to incur a loss of selling the device transported to China at a price that does not reach the cost due to the increase in inventory of the product due to the increase in the commercialization period of ○○○○○○, a service provider in 1 year or more. On December 2002, the bankruptcy company intended to make the new product plan for the Chinese market in blank and to develop the product with high level technological difficulty, but failed to overcome the crisis.

(2) The items of inventory assets and tangible asset in the review report of the half-year financial statements of ○○ Accounting Corporation on August 12, 2004 (as of June 30, 2004) for the company bankrupt are as follows. According to the above report, the net loss of the company bankrupt as of the end of the half-year period is 29,86,292,199, and the total amount of liabilities exceeding the total amount of assets as of the end of the half-year period is 24,97,620,065.

[Indication of List]

(3) The gold-type and tools of the bankrupt company were not sold, but they were not realized value, and thus, they would have to bear the cost of disposal. Re-processed goods were recorded in the account book, but not actually remaining. Of them, some of them were lost, worn out or semi-finished goods were destroyed, and thus, they would have a large amount of waste disposal cost if they were disposed of due to lack of economic utilization value.

Evidence A, evidence Nos. 5 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, the testimony of the equal witness of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

E. Determination

(1) The purpose of Article 6(4)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the legal fiction of the remaining goods as the supply of goods when a business is discontinued, is to exclude the input tax amount from the output tax amount under Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act for the remaining goods when a business is discontinued. Thus, if a business is not regarded as the supply of goods, the business owner can use or consume the remaining goods without the burden of value-added tax. The "repaid goods" means goods which are owned when the business is discontinued as those which are produced or acquired by the business owner in relation to the business. In addition, according to Articles 6(4) and 13(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the tax base for inventory goods shall be the market price, and the tax base for inventory goods shall be the case where the business owner makes an exchange of value-added tax with the person who has a special relationship with the business owner.

D. In the imposition of the value-added tax on the gold bullion owned by the bankrupt company back to the instant case, considering the circumstances that, as seen earlier, the gold penalty owned by the bankrupt company was not actually sold, but it led to the background that it would have been discarded due to its lack of realization value, there seems to be no room for any price to be formed for the sale through a normal transaction, and otherwise, the Defendant did not prove that the gold penalty would be sold at the price calculated by the defendant.

Secondly, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax on the above gold penalty on the premise that there is property value on the gold penalty owned by the bankrupt company is wrong.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the defendant's disposition of this case which exceeds the value-added tax of 47,50,206 won for inventory assets and tangible assets recognized by the plaintiff among the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case should be accepted for the reasonable ground. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair differently from this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff to revise the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the amendment of the purport

public official law, order of law,

Value-Added Tax Act

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 the "business operator") shall be liable to pay value-added taxes

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.

(4) The remaining goods when a businessman discontinues his business shall be deemed to be supplied to him. The same shall also apply when a registration is made under the proviso of Article 5 (1) and the actual business is not commenced.

Article 13 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base for value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of values falling under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply"): Provided, That value-added taxes

4. Where the business is closed down, the current market price of inventory goods.

Enforcement Decree

Article 49 (Calculation of Tax Base for Private Supply, etc.)

(1) Where goods offered for a taxation business fall under depreciable assets referred to in Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ depreciable assets”), and such goods are deemed to be supplied pursuant to Article 6 (2) through (4) of the Act, the amount calculated by the following formula shall be deemed to be the market price of the relevant goods. In this case, the number of taxable periods elapsed shall be calculated by the taxable period under Article 3 of the Act, and where the number of taxable periods elapsed for the buildings or structures exceeds 20, it shall be deemed to be 20, and where the

2. Other depreciable assets:

Acquisition valuex (1-25/100 of the number of taxable periods in which thex passes) of the relevant goods = Market value.

Article 50 (Criteria for Market Price)

(1) The market price under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Act shall be the price determined in the following subparagraphs:

1. A person in special relationship with the businessman (Article 98 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree

Any person other than those referred to in subparagraphs of paragraph (1); hereinafter the same shall apply) and the price of continuous trading in a situation similar to that in question, or the price generally traded between third parties.

2. Where there is no price or unclear price pursuant to subparagraph 1, the price pursuant to Article 98 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or Article 89 (2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree

Enforcement Decree

Article 89 (Scope of Market Price, etc.)

(1) In the application of the provisions of Article 52 (2) of the Act, if there is a price generally traded between many and unspecified persons other than a person with a special relationship or between a third party who is not a person with a special relationship, the price shall apply.

(2) In applying Article 52 (2) of the Act, if the market price is unclear, the amount calculated by applying in sequence the following subparagraphs:

1. Where there is a value appraised by an appraisal corporation under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, that value: Provided, That stocks shall be excluded;

2. The amount evaluated by the mutatis mutandis application of the provisions of Articles 38 through 39-2, and 61 through 64 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 63 (2) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 57 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “the immediately preceding six months (three months for stocks, etc. upon which gift tax is levied)” shall be deemed as “the immediately preceding

(4) In the provision of assets (not including money) or services under the provisions of Article 88 (1) 6 and 7, where the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) cannot be applied, the amount calculated pursuant to the provisions of each of the following subparagraphs shall be the market price:

1. Where tangible or intangible assets are provided or received, the amounts calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount of 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets less the amount of rental key money or deposits received in connection with such assets; and

2. Where construction or other services are provided or received, the sum of the amount required to provide the relevant services (including direct and indirect expenses; hereafter in this subparagraph “cost”) and cost multiplied by the rate of profit (referring to the rate divided by the sales amount calculated according to corporate accounting standards and the cost, divided by the cost, less the cost) during the relevant business year from transactions providing similar services to persons other than persons with a special relationship.