early 201J 3546 ( December 06, 2011)

The taxation of the remaining goods at the time of closure of the business for the goods without property value is illegal.

In full view of the fact that the instant facilities do not seem to be a facility having property value as goods independently from the building, and that the Plaintiff did not use or consume the instant facilities after the closure of the instant business, and rather paid expenses for restitution to the lessor of the store, etc., the instant facilities cannot be deemed as goods having property value and thus, the disposition imposing value-added tax on deeming the instant facilities as goods remaining at the time of closure of the business is unlawful.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Added Tax Act

2012Guhap1321 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

September 27, 2012

October 25, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on March 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 201, exceeding KRW 000,000, is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same is as the order (the date of disposition stated in the complaint on March 4, 2011 is corrected to March 1, 2011 in light of the statement of No. 1).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 6, 2007, the Plaintiff opened a retail company that sells BB brand's clothing in the name of "BB sub-store, 000 OB 000 OB 00, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 2007 (hereinafter "the headquarters of this case") but closed the above business on February 28, 2008.

B. During the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2007, the Plaintiff received 000 won tax invoices for each of the above tax invoices after the Plaintiff received 15 tax invoices for 200 won in total after having CCC Korea to create a store at the instant place of business (including snow construction, removal construction, floor construction, electrical construction, brick construction, household construction, household construction, etc.) and receive 00 won tax invoices for the supply price.

C. On March 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed the value-added tax of KRW 000 on the supply value of KRW 000,00,000 (including additional tax); and (b) imposed the value-added tax of KRW 000,000 (including additional tax) calculated by deeming the residual value of the store facilities installed by the instant construction (hereinafter “instant facility”) at the time of closure of the instant establishment as the value-added tax at the time of closure of the instant establishment; and (c) imposed the value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax) calculated by deeming it as its self-supply (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on September 20, 201, but was dismissed on December 6, 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence l through 5 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant facilities are not goods that can be reusable after the closure of the instant business, or goods that can be sold as used assets, but the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to the OOB, Inc., a lessor at the time of the closure of the business, on the ground that the instant facilities were depreciable assets, even though the Defendant paid KRW 00 to the OOB, a lessor, at the time of the closure of the business, considered the instant facilities as residual assets, and thus, it should be revoked (the Plaintiff claimed revocation of the entire disposition of this case while disputing only the value-added tax of the instant facilities

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Section 1(1) and (2) of Article 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply), the remaining goods are deemed to be supplied to the Plaintiff when the store operator discontinues its business, and the above provision provides that the remaining goods are to be deducted from the output tax amount of 00,000,000 if the remaining goods were to be used or consumed by the Plaintiff, and that the remaining goods are to be supplied to the Plaintiff under the condition that the former 00,000 sales were to be 0,000,000,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won and 0,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000 won and 7,000,000 won were 0,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.