The propriety of the principal disposition of the sale price at the market price at the time of return of contribution shares;

The value-added tax base calculated by calculating the estimated sale price at the market price shall be appropriate when a joint business operator withdraws from the business.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 156,812,830 for the first period of 2004 against the Plaintiff on April 7, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2003, the Plaintiff Yang○○○, O○○, Lee ○○○, and Lee ○○○○○○, concluded a partnership agreement (hereinafter referred to as 3/12, respectively, and 2/12, respectively, the equity shares of the Nonparty) on May 30, 200, and began a real estate business with the content of general sale and lease of the instant building from June 15, 2003, under the partnership agreement, the building of ○○ Sports Center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) which had been awarded by the Korea Asset Management Corporation at ○○○○○-dong 1051, ○○○-dong, ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), and completed a registration of ownership transfer in accordance with each of the above equity shares on the said building.

B. On February 5, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty withdrawn from the above partnership. The Plaintiff and the Nonparty transferred to ○○○○, under the name of return of equity shares, the entire share of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty on the instant building, and transferred the share of 201 to 203, 205 to 208 (hereinafter “instant store”). The Plaintiff and the Nonparty registered as the Plaintiff and the Nonparty a joint businessman with the content of changing the business representative to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, reported the value-added tax base of KRW 1,971,567,000 calculated on the basis of the development cost of the instant building and paid the value-added tax accordingly.

C. On April 7, 2006, the Defendant received notice from the head of ○○ Tax Office that the value-added tax was under-reported and paid in relation to the instant store’s supply, corrected the tax base of the instant store by 3,065,84,000 won based on the estimated sale price stated in the expected sale statement for the instant store prepared by the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, and issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the value-added tax as stated in the purport of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 3, Eul's statement and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff and the Nonparty transferred the instant store to ○○○ for the purpose of returning equity shares, the tax base of value-added tax related thereto should be based on the cost at the time of the said store’s acquisition, and even if the said store’s price should be based on the market price of the said store, the said store’s price cannot be said to be the market price (the instant store was difficult to be sold in accordance with its location condition, and the assessed value in the appraisal conducted by the Plaintiff and the Nonparty before the said store was transferred to ○○○○, actually led to the said estimated sale price, and 204, located on the same floor as the instant store, was sold in lots.) The instant disposition was unlawful in calculating the tax base by mistake.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 13 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(1) The tax base of value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of values under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as “value of supply”): Provided, That value-added taxes shall

2. Where payments other than money are given, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier;

(5) Necessary matters concerning the calculation of the tax base other than those under paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

Article 50 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)

(1) The market price under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Act shall be the price determined in the following subparagraphs:

1. The price which is generally traded between persons other than those specially related to the businessman (referring to those as referred to in each subparagraph of Article 98 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or subparagraphs of Article 87 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Upon receiving the successful bid of the instant building which is a 9th floor, the Plaintiff, the Nonparty, and the changed ○○○ were sold in lots among the stores on the 1st and fourth floor, and the sports center operations on the 5th and the 9th floor. Accordingly, each shop was sold in lots on the 1st and third floor first, and each shop located on the 1st and third floor (the 8th and the 6th floor) was sold in lots or at a price higher than the estimated sale price.

(2) After the change of ○○ secedes from a partnership relationship, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty agreed to transfer the instant store among the instant building parts, which had not yet been sold in lots under the pretext of return of equity shares in the change of ○○○, taking into account the transaction commencement tax of the neighboring stores, the estimated sale price of the instant building, etc.

(3) If calculated based on the estimated sale price, cost, and sales proceeds therefrom stated in the said estimated sale statement, the revenue that ○○ additionally acquired by acquiring shares of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty regarding the instant store is KRW 1,716,88,00, and the revenue that the Plaintiff and the Nonparty additionally acquired by acquiring shares of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty regarding the remainder of the instant building is KRW 1,876,454,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-1 to 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

D Judgment

The plaintiff and the non-party returned the shares of ○○ in kind as the store of this case in accordance with the liquidation of the business relationship with ○○○○ in kind. This constitutes the supply of goods. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the non-party are liable to pay the value-added tax calculated according to the tax base based on the market price under Article 13 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act. The sales price of 14 stores in the 14th and 3th of the building of this case in this case for six months immediately before the store was transferred to ○○○ in this case was similar to the estimated sale price stated in the above estimated sale price or above. The above estimated sale price of this case is equivalent to the estimated sale price stated in the above estimated sale price, and the sale price of the 14th and 3th of this case was calculated based on the above estimated sale price stated in the above estimated sale price. In light of the plaintiff, the non-party, and the non-party's additional acquisition of shares in the remaining unsold sale price by acquiring shares of ○○ in this case.

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the market price contrary to this, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the value of the store of this case assessed by the Korea Appraisal Board as of December 1, 2003 is lower than the above estimated sale price. However, this is merely a simple calculation of the total price of the building including the first and third floors of the building of this case, while appraising the fifth and nine floors of the building of this case as of December 1, 2003, it is difficult to view that the first and third floors of the building of this case assessed as lower than the estimated sale price at around that time were actually sold at the above estimated sale price or the price higher than the above estimated sale price, and it is difficult to view that the appraisal of the store of this case of this case of this case by the Korea Appraisal Board as of December 2, 2003 reflects the market price of this case’s 20th floor of this case’s 36th floor of this case’s 20th floor of this case’s 206th floor of this case’s 36th floor of this case’s sale price.

3. Conclusion

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