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

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1, 2 through 4-1, 4-2, and the whole purport of the pleading.

A. On September 10, 1986, the Plaintiff acquired 4m2 and 4.9m2 of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted) and 673.4m2 of buildings with 4m2 above ground-based neighborhood living facilities, and registered as a business operator around September 10, 1986, and sold the above land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Nonparty on October 30, 200 and reported the closure of business on November 30 of the same year, after selling the above land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Nonparty completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on December 6, 200, while the Nonparty registered the ownership transfer as a simplified taxable person on December 6, 200, by making the type and type of the business as “real estate leasing business” and became a general taxable person on July 1, 2001.

B. The Plaintiff did not separately file a value-added tax with the knowledge that the transfer of the instant real estate constitutes a business transfer subject to non-taxation under Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter “the Act”), but the Defendant was a simplified taxable person at the time after conducting on-site verification, and the Nonparty, a transferee of the instant real estate, was a simplified taxable person at the time. Accordingly, if a general business operator transfers the instant real estate to a simplified taxable person pursuant to Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), the Plaintiff was not subject to non-taxation and was notified of the amount including the value of the building calculated at the standard market price of KRW 140,091,800, Mar. 204, 2004 (the tax base date).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition of taxation is unlawful.

(1) Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that “Where a general taxable person transfers his/her business to a simplified taxable person,” the same shall apply only to cases where a general taxable person transfers his/her business to the transferee who has completed business registration as a simplified taxable person before the payment date of all the transfer proceeds, if the above provision is interpreted even though it is not possible to determine whether the transferee is a general taxable person or a simplified taxable person at the time of transfer or acquisition of real estate, thereby imposing unnecessary tax obligations on the transferor or transferee. As such, non-taxable transfer

The Plaintiff believed that the Nonparty was registered as a general entrepreneur and transferred the instant real estate, but the Nonparty was registered as a simplified taxable person, and if the Defendant also recommended the conversion of the type of taxation as a general taxable person, it would have to have made a business registration as a general taxable person who is not a simplified taxable person from the beginning. Therefore, it did not err by violating the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 1 is as stated in the "relevant statutes".

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument of the Plaintiff

Article 6(1) of the Act provides that where an entrepreneur delivers or transfers goods under a contractual or legal reason, the supply of goods shall be subject to value-added tax. Thus, barring any special provision that the value-added tax is exempted or not imposed, if an entrepreneur independently supplies goods within a certain scope, the requirements for value-added tax shall be satisfied if the entrepreneur independently supplies the goods. However, the comprehensive transfer of the goods is not subject to non-taxation because the comprehensive transfer of the goods under Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act does not constitute an exceptional supply of the goods. The reason why the transfer of the business is not contrary to the nature of value-added tax that takes the individual supply of the goods into account as it is by succession to the status of the transferee of the business as it is, and pays the price for the goods to him, the transaction amount and value-added tax is expected to be reduced without any exception, while the transferee of the business is expected to be subject to value-added tax, while the transferee of the business who actually takes over the goods is obliged to receive taxes once again and pressure to be refunded.

Therefore, in cases where a general taxable person intends to transfer his/her business to a general taxable person, the transferee does not have the benefits of taxation because of the deduction of the input tax amount, and the transferee does not have the benefits of taxation, and the transferee is in accordance with the purport of the system to prevent the increased burden of pressure of funds due to the refund of the value-added tax. However, in cases where the other party to the transaction is a simplified taxable person, the transaction does not reach the amount of output tax generated by the simplified taxable person (value of supply x value added rate by type of business x 10%). Therefore, in such cases, the tax authority cannot be said to have no benefits of taxation, in light of the legislative intent of making the comprehensive transfer of business non-taxation, the transfer of the business subject to non-taxation under Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree is presumed to be identical to all the transferor and transferee of the business. The general taxable person in Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "the general taxable person is excluded from the transfer of the business to a simplified taxable person."

Therefore, the non-party who is the transferee of the real estate of this case shall be deemed not to fall under the transfer of the business subject to non-taxation as a simplified taxable person after the transfer of the real estate of this case, and the imposition of value-added tax is lawful.

【Judgment on the second argument of the Plaintiff

According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the Nonparty made a statement that he would register as a general business operator, such circumstance does not affect the lawfulness of the instant disposition, and Article 25(1) of the Act, Article 74(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree, the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 175 of Dec. 30, 2000), and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s notice (Enforcement Decree No. 2000-32 of Jul. 1, 2000), if the Seoul city’s land price is more than one million won, but less than two million won and less than 75 m2, it is difficult to view that the area of the instant building was merely 673.4m2 of less than the above standard as a new registration, and that the Defendant’s business registration was made as a non-party, and that the non-party’s report was made as a simplified taxable business operator and that the non-party’s report was made in violation of the principle of good faith.

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.

Judges Chuncheon (Presiding Judge)