logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.07.24 2015누4403
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 200, the Plaintiff registered a real estate rental business, constructed a building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land and building”) on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the same Table, which is one’s own ownership, and run a real estate rental business after completing registration of ownership preservation on November 10, 200, and leased the instant building to B conducting a inn business on August 31, 2009.

B. On August 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to sell the instant land and building in KRW 1,360,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract or transfer”) with C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 30, 201.

C. The Plaintiff: (a) deemed the transfer of the instant case as “transfer of business” under Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) and did not issue a tax invoice; and (b) did not include the instant transfer proceeds in sales when filing a return of value-added tax for the second period of time in 2011.

According to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s audit and cadastral review, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the transfer of the instant building does not fall under the transfer of a comprehensive business and constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of taxation of KRW 101,90,380 in October 22, 2013; and (c) on November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review as to the legality of the taxation prior to the filing of the request, but the Defendant decided not to adopt the instant building on November 25, 2013.

E. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of correction to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, including KRW 101,990,380 [in addition, KRW 24,789,270 [i.e., additional tax for unfaithful return amounting to KRW 7,720,110] for the Plaintiff on December 2, 2011.].

arrow