(a) The meaning of transfer of the business not deemed the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act;

(b) The case holding that transferring the whole of the buildings directly operated by the authorities, the public restaurants that rent out, and the buildings containing multiples does not constitute a transfer of a non-taxable business under the Value-Added Tax

(a) The term “transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods” under Article 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act means a comprehensive transfer of property for business, human facilities, rights, and obligations, including property for business, to replace only the managing body while maintaining the identity of business;

(b) The case holding that transferring all the buildings directly operated by the proprietor, the public restaurant and the multi-faceted building does not constitute a transfer of a non-taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu139 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987,141) 87Nu956 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong1988,464) 91Nu13014 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong192,2053)

Plaintiff

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu1188 delivered on September 18, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the transfer of the above business to the non-party 1 is a comprehensive transfer of physical, human and rights and duties including the property for business, and only the main body of business is replaced by maintaining the identity of the business, the court below's determination that the non-party 1 transferred the above business to the non-party 3 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had the non-party 2 move the above business to the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 to the non-party 9's disposal of the above building on the land of this case, and that the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 transferred the above 9's disposal of the first floor to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's disposal of the above 9's disposal of the above land and the non-party 1's disposal of the above 9's disposal of the real property.

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.