not transferring a business, and constitutes a supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

It cannot be deemed that the transfer of the business is the object of transfer by specifying only the physical facilities provided for the business and intangible property value, such as the lessee's status or business right, rather than comprehensive transfer while maintaining the identity of the rights and obligations, and it does not constitute the supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

Articles 1 and 6 (Supply of Goods) of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

2014Guhap10981

Park 00

00. Head of tax office

April 1, 2015

April 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 00 (including additional tax) of the value-added tax for the first time in 2008 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 0, 2003, the Plaintiff leased 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 1 00 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”) and operated a restaurant after registering the business of “general restaurant business”. On October 0, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to transfer the right to lease and all facilities of the instant commercial building for KRW 00 million between the 00 -- 00 -- 00 - and 00 - 00 - 00 - - 00 - 00 - 00 - 1 00 - 1 - 1 -

B. On October 0, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business, and on October 0, 2008, the Plaintiff registered the business of a branch office with the trade name of 00 within 00 within 00 days, the location of 00 within 00 days, the instant shopping district, the category of business, and the miscellaneous wholesale and retail business.

C. The Plaintiff did not report the value-added tax by regarding the transfer of the instant transaction with the 00 goingsday to be exempt from value-added tax. However, the Defendant reported the transfer of the instant transaction, not the comprehensive transfer of the business, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of the value-added tax (including KRW 00) for the first time in 2008 (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on October 0, 2013, but received a decision of dismissal. On October 0, 2013, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service filed a request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request on October 0, 2014.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff comprehensively transferred the entire business, such as the right to lease and the right to operate the instant commercial building, and the entire facilities. Even if the type of the business was modified after the 00th day, it is merely an ex post facto circumstance that the Plaintiff could not participate in the instant commercial building, and the transfer of the business does not require the identity of the business, and thus, the instant transaction constitutes the transfer of the business subject to non-taxation. Therefore, the Defendant’s taxation by deeming the instant transaction as the supply of goods is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Oct. 18, 2010) mean that the transfer of a business that is not regarded as the supply of goods means the replacement of only a management entity by comprehensively transferring physical, human, human, rights, obligations, etc., including the business property. As such, the business is an organic combination of human and physical facilities that can be separated from the management entity and can be recognized as social independence. The fact that the transfer is not a simple physical facility but a organic combination of these facilities should have the burden of proving the tax disability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du8422, Apr. 28, 2006; 200Nu7878, Jul. 17, 1998).

2) In light of the following circumstances, the above evidence and the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 10 (including the separate numbers of each branch number), together with the overall purport of the pleadings, are acknowledged as the subject of transfer by specifying only the physical facilities and intangible property value, such as the lessee's status or business right, provided by the plaintiff, rather than the comprehensive transfer, while maintaining the identity of the rights and obligations with respect to the restaurant business operated by the plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the transaction of this case constitutes "transfer of business" subject to value-added tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A) Premium is distinguishable from the price for transfer of intangible property value, such as business facilities, fixtures, etc. of a building for business, or for the transfer of intangible property value, such as business interest, depending on the location of the business, or store (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da63257, Dec. 26, 2013) and for the transfer of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da63257, Dec. 26, 2013). However, in the contract for transfer and transfer of rights prepared in the course of the instant transaction, KRW 00,000,000, the price for

B) The transfer of business is concluded in the form of a contract between the transferor and the transferee. The employee on the 00 ampers date stated that the above KRW 00 million is the premium in the internal report prepared on the lease of the commercial building of this case, the opening of the commercial building and the statement of the ledger of the assets of the party branch on the 00 ampers date, and also in the confirmation document prepared by the representative director on the 00 ampers date, “it is true that there is a fact that he did not receive tax invoices and withhold taxes while paying a business license of KRW 0 million to the plaintiff.” Thus, the above KRW 00 million as a party to the transaction of this case is not perceived as a consideration for the transfer of

C) The Plaintiff filed a report on the closure of business and reported the business progress, not the “transfer and acquisition,” but the “transfer and acquisition,” and even during the deliberation of the objection against the instant tax disposition, the validity of the business report on the head of 00 head of the Gu has been maintained. Moreover, there is no evidence that the 00 ampurs reported the succession to the business status under Article 25(3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 9432 of Feb. 6, 2009) after the instant transaction.

D) On October 0, 2008, a month after the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant commercial building from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s business type was registered as a branch operator on the basis of the type of business “non-general restaurant business” and “miscellaneous retail business.” In addition, the said branch on the date of 00 ampers from the date of 00 ampers to October 0, 2009, when the sales did not occur at all, the said branch on the date of 00 ampers began to operate the instant commercial building.

E) There is no evidence to deem that there was an assessment of bonds and obligations related to the general restaurant business conducted by the Plaintiff in the course of the instant transaction, or that there was a transfer of facts, such as transaction partners, customer relations, and confidential and managerial organization in the instant business.

3) Therefore, the instant taxation is lawful since the instant transaction constitutes the supply of goods subject to the imposition of value-added tax.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.