Changwon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-50318 (2016.09)

Comprehensive transfer and acquisition of business shall not be subject to comprehensive transfer and acquisition of business in case of lease of specific parts.

In light of the fact that the transferee pays a certain amount to the Plaintiff each month until the contract of this case is terminated, it is difficult to see that the transfer price of the business right has been determined, and that if the transferee fails to pay the user fee, the business right belongs to the Plaintiff again, the business right is not a monthly fee of the telephone number rather than a transfer price

Article 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 23 (Transfer of Business not Deemed Supply of Goods)

Busan High Court (Capwon) 2016Nu11349 revocation of the disposition to impose value-added tax.

김〇〇

The Director of the Z Tax Office

Changwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap50318 Decided August 9, 2016

January 11, 2017

January 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each taxation imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff at KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 of the value-added tax (including the additional tax) on October 2, 2007, and 20,000,00,000, in total, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than to dismiss or add the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

��제1심 판결문 제2면 제9행의 "체결하였고" 다음에 "(2007. 11. 1.자 계약에 의하면, ○○○○는 2007. 11. 1.부터 055-000-0000을 이용한 마산창원지역의 대리운전사업 등을 영위하는 것에 대한 대가로 원고에게 매달 2,000만 원을 지급하는 것으로 되어 있다)"를 추가한다.

��제1심 판결문 제3면 하단의 표를 아래와 같이 고친다.

Omission of the Table

�제1심 판결문 제5면 밑에서 제5행과 제6행 사이에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

3-1) According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff transferred to ○○○○○’s employees, such as an employee of the Plaintiff’s substitute driving engineer, and a computer program system, etc. However, the main content of the instant contract is to provide ○○○○○ with exclusive right to use 055-00-0000, and receive 25 million won per month in return (as alleged in the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred the AAAAA area’s agency driving business license, etc. using 055-00-0000, but it can be deemed that only the right to 055-00-0000 was maintained in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of transfer security, and the content of the instant contract should not be maintained in the name of the Plaintiff in order to secure the above claim for transfer price under the status that the transfer price for proxy driving business license, etc. in AAA area was finalized.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.