Whether the project constitutes a comprehensive transfer or acquisition of business

It is confirmed in fact that only the selective distribution business, which is part of the business, is not the whole business, and it does not constitute a comprehensive transfer of the business.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 21,911,970 for the first period of 2006 against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 2003, the Plaintiff operated ○○○ Branch of Gangwon-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangbuk-do Branch”) and paid the value-added tax for the first period of March 31, 2006 on the premise that the transfer of the instant business constitutes a business transfer under Article 6(6)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), without including the supply value of the instant business transfer in the value-added tax base, on the premise that the transfer of the instant business falls under the business transfer under the business transfer under Article 6(6)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. On April 16, 2007, the Defendant, on the ground that the instant transfer of business does not constitute a business transfer under Article 6(6)2 of the Act, included “the value of KRW 171,818,181, which is the cost for the transfer of fixed assets for business of KRW 189 million in the supply value of the instant transfer of business, in the tax base,” and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 21,91,970 (including additional tax) for the first year of 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 4, 2007, the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case, and the above objection was dismissed, and on October 22, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal requested a national tax inquiry to the National Tax Tribunal. On December 31, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request for a judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, 3-4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant transfer of business constitutes a comprehensive succession of rights and obligations relating to the business, which falls under the business transfer under Article 6(6)2 of the Act, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From December 29, 2003, the Plaintiff operated a main business in the name of "○○ (Gangbukbuk-dong)" and "○○ Unemployment" from January 14, 2005, with the trade name of "○○○ Unemployment", and operated the Gangnam-gu branch in the name of "○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-71". Since October 9, 2006, after the instant transfer of business, the Plaintiff operated the same main business in the name of "○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○-71."

2) On March 8, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted a branch contract stating the following matters with the Lee○ on March 8, 2006, and on the 27th of the same month and the 28th of the same month, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 220 million from the ○○○, which is the husband of this ○○○, a total of KRW 30 million (the remainder excluding the outstanding amount of Gangnam Branch from KRW 300 million under the above branch contract) and transferred the instant business on the 31st of the same month.

(1) Articles: 00 million won: 300 million won. (4) The buyer: 00 million won.

3) On May 10, 2004, ○○○○○ Branch of ○○○○ Branch of Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dok-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type on May 25, 2006. However, ○○ or Dog-dong was operated on April 21, 2006, ○○○○ Branch of Dog-dong-type Dog-type Dog-type Dog-type

4) The sum of sales revenue of the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○○○○ branch’s workplace in the year 2005 was KRW 370,207 million (in the year 10,000; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 43,7930,000 (in the second year 2005), KRW 47,58330,000 for the second year 2006, KRW 4177740,000 (in the first year 2007, the sales revenue of the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○ branch’s workplace) during the same period. Of these, the sales revenue to the ○○○ branch was KRW 12,1780,000,000 (in the same period, the sales revenue of the Plaintiff), KRW 16,530,000,000) and KRW 16,530,000,00).

5) Meanwhile, excluding ○○○○ Stock Association’s death, the second largest sales place in 2005 (the sales amounting to KRW 6,1220,000 and KRW 4,0210,00,000, respectively) of the business at which ○○○ Building and ○○ Unemployment Company had operated the business at the place of Gangwon-do Branch. While the sales amount of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Housing had never existed after the second half in 2006, the Plaintiff’s sales amount to 207 continued since the second half in 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Nos. 2, 5 through 11, 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) “Transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods” under Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act refers to the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, rights, and obligations, etc., including business property, by place of business, thereby maintaining the identity of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du446, Feb. 29, 2008).

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the health team, the above recognition fact, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case, the Plaintiff determined that the Plaintiff transferred only the selective distribution business through the instant business transfer, and the consignment business did not transfer it.

① Under the contract for the transfer of the instant business, the object of the transfer was not the Plaintiff’s trade name (○○ Unemployment) but the “○○○ Branch”. This is interpreted as the object of the transfer of the business, rather than the Plaintiff’s entire business.

② The Plaintiff continued to engage in the consignment business even after the transfer of the instant business, and continued to engage in the consignment business with the customer who is the most leading place in the consignment business.

③ The transferee of the transfer of the instant business did not include the consignment business in the principal issues on business registration after the transfer of the instant business.

④ In this case, the Plaintiff was practically a person who “the fact that the consignment sector was excluded from the object of the instant transfer of business.”

3) Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the instant transfer of business cannot be deemed a transfer of business under Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition is not erroneous as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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