Whether it falls under real estate trading business

In light of its scale, frequency, type of transaction, etc., the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction has continuously and repeatedly been engaged in real estate transaction for profit purposes.

Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 5,608,720 won for the first term of 1999 against the plaintiff on May 24, 2005 and the imposition of value-added tax of 6,963,160 won for the first term of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the change of "the judgment on the issue of 2. '2. 'the decision' in the first instance court' as the ground for the decision of the first instance court. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

(1) Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a business prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy among the construction business and the real estate business shall be deemed a business of supplying goods, and Article 1(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "business prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" shall mean a business of selling or selling real estate (including the case of selling or selling real estate by constructing a non-residential or non-residential building or other buildings) or its brokerage as its business purpose and selling or selling real estate at least once during one taxation period for the purpose of business.

(2)However, since a real estate transaction is merely an exceptional provision that can be seen as a real estate transaction for the purpose of business, such real estate transaction as a whole has continued and repeated for the purpose of business, even if it comes to fall short of the sales frequency under the above provision, it does not deny the feasibility of the transaction during the pertinent taxable period. Thus, whether a real estate transaction constitutes a real estate transaction, which is a taxation requirement of value-added tax, should be determined in light of social norms, considering the degree of continuity and repetition that can be seen as a business activity in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of the transaction, and the determination should take into account not only the transfer real estate but also all the circumstances before and after the time the transfer took place throughout the entire real estate possessed by the transferor.

(3) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in real estate sales business continuously and repeatedly for the purpose of profit-making in light of the size, frequency, type of transaction, etc. of the Plaintiff’s real estate sales, including: (a) the Plaintiff acquired real estate 12 times between 1999 and 2003 and sold real estate 13 times; and (b) the number of real estate sales by selling a house or land purchased in the year 199 and 200; and (c) selling it within a short period of one month or six months in 199 and 200. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.