logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.06.23 2016두34424
부가가치세부과처분취소 등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

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 “the transfer of business is prescribed by Presidential Decree” as one of the items not deemed the supply of goods. 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. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) shall mean that “the transfer of business shall comprehensively succeed to all rights and obligations with respect to the business by place of business.” In general, it adds “the transferr adds a new type of business other

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. ① C limited company (hereinafter “C”) is a special purpose corporation established to purchase the instant real estate as part of the investment trust of special asset investment by C&C Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Asset Management Company”); ② it was scheduled to transfer the status of the purchaser and lessor of the instant real estate to the real estate fund to be incorporated by the Asset Management Company while engaging in the real estate rental business in this case; ③ in fact C entered into an exclusive real estate rental contract for part of the instant real estate, and completed the real estate rental business with the location of the instant real estate as the business; ④ However, in light of the global financial crisis in around 208, C was to acquire beneficiary certificates at the time of the establishment of the real estate fund.

arrow