If the transferee directly engages in an inn business, whether it is a transfer of the business.

The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant building without directly operating it as a leisure business does not constitute a transfer of business that comprehensively transfers physical and human facilities and rights and obligations including business property and maintains the identity of the business, and the tax authorities have the authority to impose taxes at any time to rectify the tax base and tax amount within the exclusion period for taxation.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Transfer of Business

1. The plaintiff's disposition is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 25,246,160 of the value-added tax of KRW 25,246,160 in 199 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After completing business registration as a real estate rental business operator on October 22, 1996, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to Nonparty ○○○○ on December 16, 1999, while carrying on real estate rental business on ○○○○-dong 1142-10 ○○-dong 1142-10 ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”); and ○○○ had carried on the inn business in the instant building after completing business registration on January 21, 200.

B. The defendant, on July 1, 2004, issued the disposition of this case that imposed value added tax 25,246,160 won on the plaintiff on July 1, 2004, on the ground that the plaintiff's transfer of the building of this case to ○○○ was not a transfer of business under Article 6 (6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") and Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1661 of Dec. 31, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree").

Facts that there is no dispute about recognition, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of pleading.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition is lawful in accordance with the official laws and regulations, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) First, while the Plaintiff leased the instant building to Nonparty ○○○, which is equipped with bedclothes and fixtures necessary for the inn business, the Plaintiff transferred all of the instant building and the inn fixtures installed therein to Nonparty ○○○○○, and had Nonparty ○○○ continued to engage in the inn business. As such, the transfer of the instant building ought to be deemed a transfer of business under Article 6(6) of the former Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree, which is exempt from value-added tax.

(2)Second, the imposition of value-added tax by the Defendant on the premise that the transfer of the building of this case was not imposed by considering the comprehensive transfer of the building of this case is an unjust infringement of the property right by deprived of the transferee's opportunity to refund value-added tax.

(b) Related statutes;

/Gu law

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

(6) The offer of goods as security and the transfer of business shall not be deemed the supply of goods.

(7) Matters necessary for the supply of goods under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 21 (Rectification)

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

【Gu Enforcement Decree

Article 17 (Provision of Security and Transfer of Business)

(2) The transfer of business pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 (6) of the Act shall be made to comprehensively succeed to all rights and duties with respect to the business by workplace. In this case, the rights and duties with respect to such business shall not be included in:

1. The amount receivable;

2. A document concerning accounts payable;

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

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

Article 6(6) of the former Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree mean the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, rights, and duties, etc. including business property, and the replacement of only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8800, Jan. 10, 2003). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff merely leased the instant building for the purpose of inn and do not directly operate inn and do not directly operate inn and do not directly operate in the instant building. Since ○○○○○ who acquired the instant building from the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have maintained the identity of the business before and after the transfer of the instant building, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff continued to lease the building with bedclothes and equipment necessary for inn and inn, and even after the transfer of the building, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have worked in accordance with Article 7(2)6 of the former Enforcement Decree, even if the Plaintiff continued to transfer the building to ○○○○.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiff

On the other hand, when there is an error or omission in the details of the final return of value-added tax, the tax authority has the authority to rectify the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax at any time within the exclusion period (see Article 21(1)2 of the former Act). Even if the Defendant issued the instant disposition after four years and six months have passed since the transfer of the instant building, it cannot be deemed unlawful as it exercises legitimate taxation authority pursuant to the relevant statutes. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the transferee lost the opportunity to refund value-added tax, and thus, it cannot be viewed otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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