2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Until May 2008, the Plaintiff operated a cable broadcasting business that provides subscribers with broadcasting services using the cable broadcasting transmission line that was formulated voluntarily in some areas of 00 cities using the name of “CC cable broadcasting company”.

B. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a cable broadcasting transfer and acquisition contract (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with DDD (hereinafter “DD”), the transfer value of which is KRW 5.75 billion with DD (hereinafter “DD”), and received the transfer price from DD on May 28, 2008.

C. The Defendant determined that the instant transfer contract does not constitute “business transfer” under Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) on the ground that the Plaintiff excluded real estate (land and building), vehicles, and some machinery and equipment possessed by the Plaintiff’s assets from those subject to transfer, and its employees did not succeed to DD (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). The Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of value-added tax for the first period of 2008, and imposed value-added tax for the Plaintiff on June 7, 2013 (including additional tax, 434,69,999,999) under the instant transfer contract (hereinafter “value-added tax disposition”).

D. On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant taxation disposition, and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 29, 2013, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss a tax appeal on September 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the absence of dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff transferred the core assets to run the cable broadcasting business, that is, the transmission and reception equipment, and the right to benefit from the collection of the management fees and viewing fees to 23,856 cable broadcasting subscribers held by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, since the management entity of the cable broadcasting business operated by the Plaintiff was changed to D, the transfer contract of this case constitutes "transfer of business" under Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The EE Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Broadcasting”) was a CATV broadcasting business operator as of April 8, 2008. The term “CATV broadcasting business operator” means a business operator who transmits broadcasting channels received from a broadcasting channel supplier or a broadcasting channel self-produced by a CATV broadcasting business operator, and collects fees, etc. from subscribers who have entered into terms and conditions of use with him/her. Meanwhile, as of April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff was a CATV relay broadcasting business operator as of April 8, 2008. The term “CATV relay broadcasting business operator” means a relay business operator who receives limited broadcasting channels from a CATV broadcasting business operator and provides cable broadcasting services to subscribers to cable broadcasting and collects fees, etc. using the cable broadcasting transmission lines that are voluntarily

2) On December 26, 2003, the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s subscriber with the E broadcast service through the cable broadcast transmission line, etc. held in some areas of 00 cc, and converted the Plaintiff’s subscriber into the subscriber of the E broadcast, but the Plaintiff entered into a collaboration contract with EE broadcast to perform the Plaintiff’s duties of maintaining, managing, attracting new subscribers, installing, maintaining, and repairing the subscriber’s transmission network within the collaboration area (an existing relay cable broadcasting broadcasting business permission area of the Plaintiff), and to receive a certain amount of the fee collected from the above subscriber. The Plaintiff returned the Plaintiff’s license for the CATV relay broadcasting business on February 10, 204, and accordingly the registration of the E broadcast network operator was invalidated. The Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s subscriber with the E broadcast service through the cable broadcast transmission network installation, maintenance, and repair, and the Plaintiff’s business of receiving part of the fee allocated from the Plaintiff’s E broadcast service through the Plaintiff’s respective broadcast network installation and transmission equipment (the Plaintiff’s own broadcast network).

3) The business assets held by the Plaintiff after the conclusion of collaboration are those of the Plaintiff’s existing cable broadcasting transmission lines and EE Broadcasting’s existing cable broadcasting transmission lines managed by the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff’s transmission network installed, maintained, and repaired by the Plaintiff; the right to receive partial distribution of the receiving fees from EE Broadcasting; employees for the installation, maintenance, management, and management of the above transmission network; staff for the installation, management, and subscriber management, etc.

4) 주식회사 GG네트웍스(이하 'GG네트웍스'라 한다)는 00시에 가입자를 보유하고 EE방송으로부터 종합방송채널을 수신하는 중계유선방송사업자이다. GG네트웍스는 2008. 4. 8. 당시 EE방송의 최대주주였고, DDDD는 그 당시 GG네트웍스의 최대주주였다. 소외 YYY은 그 당시 GG네트웍스와 DDDD의 최대주주(GG네트웍스 주식의 40% 보유, DDDD 주식의 20% 보유)였고 EE방송, GG네트웍스, DDDD의 각 대표이사였다.

5) YY proposed that Y will take over the Plaintiff’s CATV relay broadcasting business as the representative director of DD while promoting mergers between EE Broadcasting and DD around early 2008.

6) The main contents of the instant transfer contract concluded on April 8, 2008 between the Plaintiff and DDR are as follows.

【Transfer Contract of this case】

○ : DDR representative director YY

B:CC Cable Broadcasting Representative JJ

Article 1 (Indication of Property of Objects)

The subject matter of this contract is the whole of theCC cable broadcasting facilities (except the company house and the site and vehicles) located at 00 .0 p.m. as of the date of this contract, and the right to manage the paid cable broadcasting subscribers of 23,856, and the right to benefit from the collection of subscription fees.

Article 2 (Amount of Acquisition Price and Method of Payment, etc.)

(1) The total amount of money taken over for the objects mentioned in Article 1 shall be KRW 5.75 billion.

(2) On the date of concluding a contract, A shall pay 400 million won as a down payment to B, and any balance shall be paid within 50 days after concluding a contract.

(3) The subject-matter of this transfer shall be the owner of B with all rights concerning profits, operation, etc. and Party A shall be prohibited from interfering with them, until any balance is paid after receiving the down payment.

④ After receiving any balance, Eul shall immediately transfer the subject-matter of Article 1 to Gap. Since Gap has already verified the subject-matter of the contract of this case, Eul shall not raise any objection or lawsuit against the number of subscribers or other subject-matter of the contract of this case after the conclusion of this contract.

7) DDDD는 원고에게, 2008. 4. 8. 계약금 4억 원을, 2008. 5. 28. 나머지 잔금을 전부 지급했고, 2008. 6. 2. 원고의 영업권 m방송가입자, 인터넷 수익 배분권(전송망 사용료) , 전송선로 시설(전송선로 시설 설치 도면, 전송선로 자산 내역)을 각 인수하고 원고의 주요 계약(EE방송과의 협업계약, GG네트웍스와의 HFC 전송망 이용 협정, 공가주사용 계약)을 승계하였다.

8) 이 사건 양도계약 이후 DDDD는 원고로부터 양수한 영업권, 전송선로 시설 등 사업권을 GG네트웍스에 재양도했고, 실질적으로는 EE방송이 위 영업권, 전송선로 시설 등을 인수하여 종합유선방송사업을 했다. 이에 따라 원고의 사업체에서 근무하던 직원 중 선로관리, 고객관리 등을 맡았던 직원 5명은 이 사건 양도계약 이후 원고 사업체에서 퇴사하고 EE방송 또는 EE방송 협력업체로 이직하여 근무하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 2 and 3 of Evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 29, 30, 32, 333, 37, and 2 and 3 of

The purpose of body

B. Determination

1) Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that a comprehensive succession to all rights and obligations relating to the business shall not be deemed a supply of goods. The transfer of a business not deemed a supply of goods refers to a comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities and obligations, including business property, to replace only a management body while maintaining the identity of the business. As such, the business must be a systematic combination of human and physical facilities so that the business can be separated from the management body and can be recognized as a social independence. The fact that the object of transfer is not a simple physical facility but such organic combination is not a value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du17294, Nov. 29, 2007).

2) In light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed in the relevant statutes, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer of facilities such as transmission network, subscriber management right, and right to distribute receiving fees, etc. to DD through the instant transfer contract is a comprehensive business transfer.

① Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act defines transfer of business as comprehensively succeeding to all rights and obligations with respect to such business, and provides that it shall be deemed as comprehensively succeeding to the relevant business even if the business is succeeded under subparagraph 3 without including those related to land, buildings, etc. which are not directly related to the relevant business and are prescribed

Article 8-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 549 of Apr. 2, 2007) defines land, buildings, etc. which are not directly related to the relevant business as assets equivalent to assets under Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20763 of Apr. 3, 2008) provides for real estate and movable property which

In other words, according to the relevant laws and regulations, it is essential to include the subject matter of transfer in order to be recognized as a comprehensive business transfer, and it is not an economic value among the rights and obligations concerning the business, and all the assets or assets of the existing company. Therefore, in order to determine whether the transfer contract of this case constitutes a comprehensive business transfer, it is necessary to examine whether the subject matter of transfer contract of this case includes most major assets directly used by the plaintiff for the business.

As seen earlier, since the Plaintiff entered into a collaboration with E Broadcasting around December 2003, it was not an independent relay broadcasting business until April 8, 2008, which is the date of the instant transfer contract, but an existing subscriber via E Broadcasting Transmission Network that the Plaintiff had received broadcasting signals from the existing subscribers, or an existing subscriber to the E Broadcasting by installing new transmission network to transmit the broadcast signals to subscribers in such a way as above, and a part of the receiving fees collected from E Broadcasting was allocated to the subscribers. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not own existing or newly installed transmission network or newly installed transmission network, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer and management right of the Plaintiff’s business was not necessary to view that the transfer and management right of the Plaintiff’s business was not an essential part of the transfer and management right of the Plaintiff’s transfer and management right of the E broadcasting network, and that the transfer and management right of the Plaintiff’s transfer and management right was not an essential part of the transfer and management right of the Plaintiff’s transfer and management right of the E-based broadcasting business.

② DD acquired the Plaintiff’s business assets according to the instant transfer contract, and re-transfered them to the Gangwon Network. In fact, whether EE Broadcasting operated the Plaintiff’s business by using the Plaintiff’s business assets, but whether the instant transfer contract constitutes a comprehensive business transfer, and whether the transferee actually operated the business that the transferee acquired after the conclusion of the transfer contract, or whether it was re-transfered to a third party, is separate. The standard for determining whether the transfer of business is a comprehensive business transfer arises as it maintains the same business, and the business entity is not able to maintain the existing business due to the instant transfer contract, as seen earlier, and EE Broadcasting was prevented from maintaining the Plaintiff’s business due to the instant transfer contract, and thus, the said transfer contract constitutes a comprehensive business transfer accompanied by the change

C. Sub-committee

The instant transfer contract constitutes a “business transfer” under Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, is not a “supply of goods, which is a requirement for the imposition of value-added tax.” Therefore, the instant transfer contract is deemed a supply of goods, and thus, the instant taxation disposition that imposes

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the taxation of this case is unlawful, it is decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's claim with merit.