Where a transferee leases a workplace comprehensively acquired by transfer, whether the business falls under the comprehensive transfer;

The fact that all the rights of lease, the operating right and the facilities are transferred to the convenience store, and the transferee is not directly operated after the transfer of the place of business, but the lease of the convenience store to the non-party is considered to have comprehensively transferred the business.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

1. The disposition of imposing value-added tax (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 1, 2007 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the whole purport of arguments:

"가. 원고는 2000. 5. 2.부터 ○○ ○○○ ○○○ 에서 '◀◀◀◀'이라는 상호로 편의점(이하 '이 사건 사업장'이라 한다. 소매업)을 운영해 오다가 2002.7.10. 주식회사 △△△△△△(이하 '△△△△△△'이라 한다)에게 위 편의점의 영업권 및 시설물 일체를 양도한 다음, 이 사건 사업장의 양도가 구 부가가치세법(2006.12.30 법률 제8142호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '구법'이라 한다) 제6조 제6항 제2호 등 소정의 재화의 공급으로 보지 아니하는 사업의 양도에 해당한다고 판단하여 관련 부가가치세를 신고하지 아니하였다.",나. 서울지방국세청장은 이 사건 사업장의 양도에 대한 세무조사결과, △△△△△△ 이 이 사건 사업장을 원고로부터 양도받은 후 ◎◎◎에게 임대한 사실을 확인하고 위 사업장의 양도와 관련된 과세자료를 피고에게 통보하자, 피고는 위 사업장의 양도는 양도 전후에 사업의 동일성이유지되는 '사업의 양도'에 해당하지 않는다고 보고 2007.5.7. 원고에게 그 재화의 양도에 따른 2002년 제2기 부가가치세로 13,443,700원(가산세 포함)을 결정·고지(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)하였다.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 9, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed it on December 14, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff operated the convenience store at the instant place of business, and comprehensively transferred all business rights and facilities related to the above convenience store to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on July 10, 2002, which constitutes a transfer of business that does not constitute a supply of goods, such as Article 6(6)2 of the former Act, but the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods, such as Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Act, is to comprehensively transfer the physical and human facilities, rights, and obligations including the business assets, and to replace only the main body of the business while maintaining the identity of the business. However, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ in the instant place of business operated a real estate rental business by leasing the instant place of business to a dedicated company. As such, the transfer of the instant place of business cannot be deemed to constitute a comprehensive transfer and takeover of the place of business in the instant case where the identity of the business before and after the date of business transfer is maintained. Accordingly, the transfer of the instant place of business cannot be deemed to constitute a transfer of business not deemed a supply of goods, such as Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Act, and the instant

C. Relevant statutes

[The Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006)]

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(6) Any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed the supply of goods:

1. Offering any goods as security, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and

2. Transfer of business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where an entrepreneur delivers a tax invoice under Article 16, and as prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

[Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)]

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

(2) For the purpose of the main sentence of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act, the term “those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means comprehensively succeeding to all rights and obligations with respect to the business to each place of business (including the case of division meeting the requirements under Article 46 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, but excluding the case where a general taxable person transfers the business to a simplified taxable person). In this case, even if he succeeds to the business without including those falling under any of the following subparagraphs among the rights and obligations with respect to the business, it shall be deemed that the business concerned has comprehensively

1. The amount receivable;

2. A document concerning accounts payable;

3. Land, buildings, etc. not directly related to the relevant business as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

[Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930)]

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

(2) The term "those prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act means comprehensively succeeding to all rights and obligations with respect to the relevant business at each place of business (including cases of a division meeting the requirements under Article 46 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act and cases where the transferee adds new types of business or changes the types of business other than the business succeeded to). In such cases, even if the transferee succeeds to the relevant business without including those falling under any of the following subparagraphs among the rights and obligations with respect to the relevant business, it shall be deemed that the relevant business has been comprehensively succeeded:

1. The amount receivable;

2. A document concerning accounts payable;

3. Land, buildings, etc. not directly related to the relevant business as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

D. Determination

1) The transfer of a business not deemed the supply of goods under Article 6(6)2 of the former Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) shall be deemed to impair the replacement of only the managing body while maintaining the identity of the business by comprehensively transferring physical and human facilities, rights, and obligations, including business property, etc.

이 사건에 관하여 보면, 위에서 든 각 증거에 갑제6호증의 기재 및 변론 전체의 위지를 종합하면, 원고는 2000.5.2.부터 이 사건 사업장에서 편의점을 운영해 오다가 2002.7.10. △△△△△△에게 위 편의점에 관한 임차권과 운영권 및 시설물(담배소매인지정서, 집기비품, 기타 재고 등) 일체를 대금 7,500만원에 양도한 사실, 그런데 △△△△△△은 이 사건 사업장을 양도받은 후 이를 직영하지 아니하고 ◎◎◎과 제2종가맹점 계약을 체결하고 동인에게 위 편의점을 임대하였으며, ◎◎◎은 2002.7.22.부터 위 사업장에서 '◀◀◀◀'라는 상호로 편의점 영업을 계속 운영해 오고 있는 사실, 한편 △△△△△△은 1971.2.13. ◀◀◀세무서장에게 사업의 종류를 도소매, 부동산업등, 사업 종목을 편의점, 슈퍼마켓, 백화점, 할인점 임대, 관리 등으로 하여 사업자등록을 마친 후 이와 같은 사업을 경영해 오고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고는 △△△△△△에게 이 사건 편의점에 대한 임차권, 운영권 및 시설물 일체를 양도함으로써 사업을 포괄적으로 양도하였다고 할 것이므로 이 사건 사업장의 양도는 구법 제6조 제6항 제2호 및 구시행령 제17조 제2항 소정의 재화의 공급으로 보지 아니하는 사업의 양도에 해당한다고 할 것이고, 피고의 주장처럼 △△△△△△이 이 사건 편의점을 양수한 후 직접 편의점을 운영하지 아니하고 이를 제3자에게 임대를 주어 제3자로 하여금 편의점을 운영하게 하였다고 하여도 이는 양수인인 △△△△△△이 일단 이 사건 편의점에 대한 사업권 일체를 원고로부터 포괄적으로 양수받은 이후에 이루어진 법률관계이므로 이를 들어 이사건 사업장의 양도가 재화의 공급으로 보지 아니하는 사업의 양도에 해당하지 않는다고 볼 것은 아니라 할 것이다.

Furthermore, Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19330, Feb. 9, 2006) stipulates that the scope of business transfer is clearly defined by stipulating that the transferee shall be the transfer of a business other than the succeeded business in case where the transferee comprehensively succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the business by place of business, or where the type of business is added to the succeeded business or the type of business is changed, the transfer of the business is not deemed the supply of the goods. In light of this point, it is more so more so more so in light of

2) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise against the foregoing, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.