Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-46521 ( January 22, 2016)

Seocho 2013west 4975 ( May 15, 2014)

applicable to the transfer of a business not deemed the supply of goods.

In light of the fact that the comprehensive transfer of all rights and duties, including the status of the buyer and the lessor of real estate, it constitutes a transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

2016Du34424

○○ et al.

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu46521 Decided January 22, 2016

June 23, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "a transfer of business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall not be deemed a supply of goods," and Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 2, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a transfer of business shall be made by adding a new type of business or a change in the type of business in addition to the succeeded business."

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. ① AAA limited company (hereinafter referred to as "AA") was established for the purchase of the instant real estate as part of a special asset investment trust by BB stock company (the trade name was changed to CCC Asset Management Company on September 18, 2008; hereinafter referred to as "asset management company") and ② AA had been scheduled to transfer the purchaser and lessor's status of the instant real estate to the real estate fund to be established in the future by the asset management company while operating the real estate in this case; ③ AA entered into an exclusive agency contract for the real estate in this case; ③ it entered into a lease contract for part of the instant real estate in this case with the real estate as its place of business; ④ However, it did not view that AAA had no other obligation to transfer the pertinent real estate as the object of sale and lease on the ground that it did not constitute the transfer of the instant real estate to the purchaser of each of the instant real estate in accordance with the original plan for sale of the real estate in this case.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on "transfer of business" under Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value

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