Whether it is impossible to view the comprehensive transfer of business as it does not succeed to employment, succeed to bonds and obligations, etc.

It can not be an obstacle to recognizing the transfer of business even if the credit account receivables or obligations are excluded from the subject of transfer or the previous employees are not transferred as they are.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 17 (Provision of Security, Transfer of Business and Payment of Taxes in Kind)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 156,047,250 on July 2, 2007 against the plaintiff on July 2, 2007 (the "statement of the plaintiff on July 31, 2007" seems to be an error).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4.

A. On March 6, 2006, the Plaintiff, engaged in the business of dismantling and repairing ships, purchased land, factory buildings, and machinery, etc. (hereinafter “instant business place”) 1,775,000,000 won from ○○○-ri 56 ○○-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri, Simsan (hereinafter “○○-ri-ri business place”) (i.e., land KRW 500,000 + KRW 1,257,000,000 for buildings and machinery, etc. + KRW 1,257,00,000 for buildings and machinery, etc.) and filed a value-added tax return for the first year of 2006 by deducting the supply price of KRW 1,275,00,000 from ○○ Energy (hereinafter “○ Energy”).

B. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 156,047,250 for the first term value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) without deducting the input tax amount, on the ground that the instant trade in the instant place of business constituted a comprehensive transfer of business, and that the transaction did not constitute the supply of goods unless the ○○ Energy did not report and pay the value-added tax collected after issuing the tax invoice to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 14, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful when it was transferred from ○ Energy to conduct a designated waste interim disposal business and was partially newly employed by ○ Energy employees, but did not succeed to employment. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not succeed to the customer and the obligation of ○ Energy, and did not pay value-added tax to ○○ Energy, but did not pay the value-added tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 17 (Provision of Security, Transfer of Business and Payment of Taxes in Kind)

C. Determination

According to Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 17 (2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007), transferring a business is not a supply of goods but a comprehensive succession of all rights and obligations with respect to the business. However, where an entrepreneur delivers a tax invoice and pays the tax collected by the entrepreneur, the transfer of the business is deemed an exception to the supply of goods. Thus, the transfer of the business refers to a comprehensive transfer of physical property including business property, human facilities, and rights and obligations to replace only the main agent while maintaining the identity of the business. It cannot be an obstacle to recognizing the transfer of the business even if it is excluded from credit account receivables or obligations corresponding to account receivable or accounts payable, or even if the former employee is not a previous transferee.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○○ Energy Management Business did not constitute an intermediate disposal business under the name of the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s intermediate disposal business did not constitute a new owner of the goods under the name of the Plaintiff’s transaction partner; and (b) the Plaintiff did not receive any value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s intermediate disposal business under the name of the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods; and (c) the Plaintiff’s intermediate disposal business under the name of the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods and the Plaintiff’s new owner of the goods.

3. Conclusion

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