(a) Criteria for determining whether real estate transactions constitute the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act and income derived therefrom is business income;

(b) The case holding that even if a real estate sales businessman has registered as a business operator under the Real Estate Lease Act after construction of a new building and transferred after temporary lease, it becomes subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax

A. As a part of a real estate transaction, the issue of whether the act of transferring a building constitutes the supply of goods subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act, and whether the transaction of real estate constitutes business income shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by considering whether the sale and purchase of real estate for the purpose of profit-making and whether the transaction of real estate has continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as business activities in light of the scale, recovery, mode of attitude, etc. of the sale and purchase of real estate, and the provision of Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is an example

B. Even if a real estate rental business is registered and a temporary building is leased after construction of a new building, if it can be seen as falling under business activities as a real estate sales businessman, such income shall be subject to taxation as business income under the Value-Added Tax Act. The transfer does not constitute "transfer of business" which does not constitute the supply of goods under Article 6 (6) of the same Act.

(a)Article 1(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 2(1)5 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 1(1)8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6559 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 356) 92Nu14526 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1105) 93Nu17522 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2662)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Ahn-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Head of the sericultural Tax Office and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu16248 delivered on May 27, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a real estate transaction takes place as a part of business activities, and thus the act of transferring a building constitutes the supply of goods subject to the Value-Added Tax Act, and whether the real estate transaction income falls under the business income shall be determined in accordance with ordinary social norms by considering whether the real estate transaction for the purpose of profit-making and whether the sale of real estate has continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as business activities in light of the size, frequency, mode, etc. of the sale and purchase, and whether the provision of Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely an example of a case where it can be deemed that the real estate transaction is engaged in real estate transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14526, Feb. 23, 1993). Accordingly, it is reasonable and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principle and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 1(1) of

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. Even if a real estate rental business is registered after construction of a new building and a temporary building is leased, if it can be seen as falling under the business activities of a real estate sales businessman, such income shall be subject to taxation as business income under the Value-Added Tax Act.

The court below held that the transfer of a real estate rental business after the plaintiff newly constructed a building No. 5 which was engaged in real estate sales business in the judgment of the court below shall not be a transfer of business under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act as part of the real estate sales business, and that the transfer of a real estate after registration of the real estate rental business and temporary lease shall not be a transfer of business under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)