Whether the transfer of building for real estate rental is subject to value-added tax.

If a business operator who has run a real estate rental business solely on the same building sells a building which is the object of the provision of the real estate and transfers the ownership, it shall be deemed to discontinue the real estate service business, so this shall not be deemed to be the supply of the remaining goods after the discontinuance of the business.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Whether it constitutes a transaction subject to value-added tax if the only building subject to real estate rental is transferred;

If a real estate rental business operator operating a real estate rental business solely on the same building, sells the above building itself, which is the object of the supply of the service, and takes over the proceeds therefrom, regardless of registration or notification under the Act such as report of closure of business, it shall be deemed to discontinue the real estate service business regardless of whether it is registered or reported under the Act such as report of closure of business. Therefore, this cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have discontinued the real estate service business regardless of whether it is registered or reported under Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Since the transfer of the above building is to the extent that the status as a rental business operator is extinguished, it shall not be deemed to be a temporary or contingent supply of the business-related goods under Article 1 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the

Articles 1 and 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

1. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 75,350,00 against the Plaintiff on August 21, 1989 by the Defendant is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

원고가 그 소유인 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 ㅇ 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩으로 1986.7.31.경부터 부동산임대업을 경영하여 오다가 1989.4.14. 위 건물을 소외 서울 ㅇㅇ기계부품상 협동조합에 대금 685,000,000원에 양도하고, 1989.7.25. 부가가치세확정신고를 한 후 이를 납부하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고가 위 건물양도를 부가가치세법상 재화의 공급에 해당되는 것으로 보아 1989.8.21. 원고에 대하여 부가가치세법 제22조, 제23조의 규정에 의하여 산출한 부가가치세 금 75,350,000원의 부과처분을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

The plaintiff asserts that the above building was the only building that the plaintiff operated the real estate rental business, and that the plaintiff's real estate rental business was terminated by transferring it as above. Therefore, although the transfer of the above building which caused the termination of the above real estate rental business cannot be viewed as the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, it constitutes the supply of goods, the disposition of this case by the defendant who calculated and notified the above value-added tax to the plaintiff is unlawful.

살피건대, 갑 제3,4,5,7호증, 을 제11호증, 을 제12호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재와 증인 박ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1986.7.31. 경부터 사업자등록신고는 하지 아니한 채 위 건물만으로 부동산임대업을 경영하여 오던중 위 서울 ㅇㅇ기계부품상 협동조합이 1988.12.5. 경 서울특별시장으로부터 위 건물소재지 일대의 도시계획사업(유통업무설비)시행허가를 받고 그 무렵부터 그 사업시행에 들어가 그 사업구역 내에 속한 위 건물의 매수를 희망하므로 1989.4.10. 위 조합에 위 건물을 대금 685,000,000원에 매도하기로 하는 계약을 체결하고, 같은 달 14. 위 조합명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 준 사실, 위 조합은 원고로부터 위 건물을 매수함에 있어 원고의 위 건물임차인들에 대한 임차보증금 반환채무도 모두 인수하기로 약정한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

In light of the above facts, if the plaintiff who is a real estate rental business operator sells the above building, which is the object of the service supply, and takes over its ownership after receiving the price therefor, it shall be deemed to discontinue the real estate service business regardless of registration or report under the Act such as report of closure of business, etc. In this case, the plaintiff's act of selling the above building cannot be deemed to be the ground for taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act since the plaintiff's act of selling the above building cannot be deemed to be the temporary and contingent supply of the goods related to the business under Article 1 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, since the transfer of the building in this case is to the extent that the status of the plaintiff as the rental business operator is extinguished, it shall not be deemed to be the temporary and contingent supply of the goods related to the business under Article 1 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the real estate sales businessman who completed the sales contract on April 14, 1986, 1989.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case imposing value-added tax by deeming the Plaintiff’s above building trade as a transaction subject to value-added tax and imposing value-added tax cannot be avoided due to its illegality. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition