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

The reasons for this decision are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance except for the supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance in paragraph (2).

2. Supplement of judgment of the first instance court;

A. The circumstances acknowledged by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of transferring the sales right of the commercial building of this case after purchasing the commercial building of this case may be deemed as a profit-making and continuous and repeated business activity, and thus, (b) the Plaintiff is deemed to have run real estate sales business under the Value-Added Tax Act, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions No. 12-1 and No. 3-1 as well as the purport of the entire arguments and arguments.

1) The confirmation letter prepared by the Plaintiff (No. 3-1) states that the commercial building of this case was purchased on July 5, 2005 after registering the real estate sales business operator as of July 1, 2005, and the opening date of the business is indicated as July 1, 2005 that the business type shall be the real estate sale and purchase in the application form for the registration of business (No. 12-1) filed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, even based on such statement, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the commercial building of this case in order to directly engage in the real estate sales business.

2) As long as the supply of goods, etc. falls under the supply of goods, etc. under the Value-Added Tax Act, whether the supply is for the continuous maintenance and expansion of business, or for liquidation, reorganization, or discontinuation of business, it shall be subject to taxation, regardless of its purpose (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du17157 Decided February 14, 2008). Thus, even if the Plaintiff transferred the sales right of the instant commercial building due to the problem of the balance of the sales right, the Plaintiff intended to conduct real estate sales business, as the Plaintiff intended to conduct real estate sales business, was at the level of business strategy for the recovery of the scrap or investment principal due to a failure in the business financing plan or a change in the plan, and thus, the feasibility of the transfer of sales

B. Comprehensively considering the various circumstances described by the court of first instance, it is difficult to view the purchaser and the transferor of the right to sell the commercial building of this case as the Plaintiff. However, even if the statement of Nos. 5 through 9, and 13 submitted by the court of first instance, the testimony of the witness and witness A submitted by the court of first instance, and the statement of No. 14 submitted by the court of first instance, it is insufficient to reverse it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.