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

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 5-2, 5, 1, 6-3, 7-1, 2, 9, 10, 13-1, 2, and 13-1 of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3-2, 5, 6-3, 7-1, 7, 7-1, 8-2, 10, 13-2, and 1-1 are collected, this can be acknowledged, and no other counter-proof exists.

A. On September 15, 2003, when the Plaintiff had registered as a general taxable person and operated a lodging business on March 12, 1993, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building floor area of 00.0 square meters on each site (the total floor area: 00.0 meters; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) of ○○○-dong, Daegu ○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○, on September 15, 2003, and operated a real estate leasing business on the first to six stories above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). In addition, the Plaintiff directly engaged in a lodging business from 1 to 6 stories above the ground (the total area: 1590 L2m) to 15.4m, and operated a real estate leasing business on the other ground (the area: 35.4m) as an entertainment tavern.

B. On January 7, 2005, the Plaintiff comprehensively transferred to ○○○○○ on a comprehensive basis all the rights and obligations with respect to the instant land, buildings, and accommodation business of 1.85 billion won, and reported the closure of business to ○○○○○○ Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer contract”).

C. Meanwhile, on January 14, 2005, both ○○ was registered as a simplified taxable person, and the Plaintiff was the same as the Plaintiff, and was engaged in the lodging business directly from the first to the sixth floor among the instant building, and leased the first underground floor to another person as an entertainment drinking house, thereby running a real estate rental business. In addition, the type of taxation was converted into a general taxable person on January 1, 2006.

D. On May 8, 2006, the Defendant, as a transferee of the instant land and building, obtained the instant land and building, and thereafter registered as a simplified taxable person to engage in accommodation business and real estate leasing business, and accordingly, the type of taxation is changed. Therefore, the instant transfer contract constitutes the supply of goods not subject to comprehensive transfer of business, on the ground that the transfer price of the instant land and building constitutes the supply of goods not subject to comprehensive transfer of business, calculated by dividing and calculating the transfer price of the instant building based on the standard market price among the transfer price of 850 million won for the instant land and building based on the standard market price, and then made a decision to impose KRW 139,587,000 calculated based on the transfer price of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”), and at that time notified the Plaintiff thereafter.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition in accordance with the relevant statutes.

The plaintiff, through the transfer contract of this case, comprehensively transferred all rights and obligations relating to the land of this case and the business of accommodation, etc. to ○○○○ through the transfer contract of this case, and even if ○○○, a transferee of the transfer contract of this case, reported as a simplified taxable person, in light of its business form, its reported value-added tax amount, and the purport of the Enforcement Decree of the Additional Value-Added Tax Act amended after the transfer contract of this case, both ○○ should be regarded as a general taxable person. Thus, although the transfer contract of this case constitutes a transfer of business between general taxable persons subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act, although the transfer contract of this case does not constitute a transfer of business between general taxable persons, the defendant issued the disposition of this case to impose value-added tax on the plaintiff by deeming that the transfer contract of this case does not correspond to a transfer of business between general

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, we examine the plaintiff's argument that even if an entrepreneur reported as a simplified taxable person, if he/she satisfies the requirements of an objective general taxable person, he/she should be considered as a general taxable person, whether he/she will be a general taxable person at the time of business registration, whether he/she shall be a simplified taxable person, according to the applicant's decision. The defendant does not have to accept the plaintiff's assertion that he/she is not a specific taxable person, since he/she is not a specific taxable person and a simplified taxable person under Article 25 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8l42 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 74 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), since he/she does not fall under the above provision and provision of this case's tax exemption.

(2) Article 6(1) of the Act provides that the supply of goods shall be transferred or transferred by all contractual or legal grounds. However, Article 6(6)2 of the Decree provides that “the transfer of business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” shall not be deemed a transfer of goods, and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that “the transfer of business shall be comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of each place of business (excluding the transfer of business to a simplified taxable person; hereinafter the same shall apply).” As above, the additional tax law provides that the transfer of business shall not be deemed a supply of goods and services subject to value-added tax, and thus, it shall be deemed that the transfer of business cannot be deemed as a sale of goods or services by nature or that it is inappropriate to view such supply as a sale of value-added tax by 00,000 won or more, and that it shall be deemed that the transfer of business is exempt from taxation (see Article 6(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which provides that “the transfer of business shall be deemed as a sale of goods and its comprehensive supply of value-added tax.”

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, considering that the transfer of business pursuant to the transfer contract of this case is not subject to non-taxation, and the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's above main office cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.