[1] The meaning of transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act

[2] The case holding that a joint business operator of a new building and a sales business shall not be deemed a transfer of business not deemed a supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that a joint business operator of a new building and a sales business transfers a unsold portion to its sole ownership by his own shares, in substance, only the return of

[1] The term "transfer of business not considered as the supply of goods" under Article 6 (6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998) refers to the transfer of property for business by place of business, such as property for business, human facilities, rights, and obligations, to replace only a business owner while maintaining the consistency of business.

[2] The case holding that a joint business operator of a new building and a sales business shall not be deemed a transfer of business not deemed a supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that a joint business operator of a new building and a sales business transfers a unsold portion to its sole ownership by his own share, in substance, only a return of investment

[1] Article 6 (6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998) / [2] Article 6 (6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 17 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15420 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 767), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3224 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1242), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12778 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2158)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu11831 delivered on June 26, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 6(6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998) mean that the transfer of a business that is not deemed a supply of goods refers to the transfer of physical property including business property, human facilities, rights and obligations, etc. for each place of business to replace only a management entity while maintaining the identity of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu15420, Jan. 19, 1993; 97Nu324, Mar. 27, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the part of the above 1-3 joint business for the first five separate business units for the first five separate business units for the first five separate business units and the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units and the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units and the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units, and the second separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units, and the second separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the first five separate business units and the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units for the second five separate business units.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the transfer of business as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Generally, the division of co-owned property to resolve the co-ownership relationship cannot be deemed the supply of goods subject to value-added tax. Thus, the court below's reasoning that the division of co-owned property itself constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the supply of goods. However, as seen above, the court below's decision is justified in its determination that it constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act because it constitutes the supply of goods because the third party, including the plaintiff, etc., who is a joint business operator, returns each share of the above unsold portion to the third party in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in order

The remaining grounds of appeal are without merit since the division of the article jointly owned itself constitutes the supply of the article.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)