Suwon District Court 2010Guhap1312, Dec. 09, 2010

Early High Court Decision 2010Du1105 (Law No. 24, 2010)

Where a real estate sales businessman temporarily leases a building and transfers it, the disposition of imposition is legitimate because it cannot be considered as a comprehensive business transfer.

(1) If a person who runs a real estate sales business temporarily leases a building after the construction of the building, and only transfers it to another person, the disposition of imposition is legitimate on the ground that it does not constitute a comprehensive transfer that is not deemed a supply of goods, and it does not constitute a supply of goods as a real estate sales businessman.

2011Nu1865 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

30

○○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap13112 Decided December 9, 2010

May 25, 2011

June 29, 2011

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. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 79,671,100 against the Plaintiff on February 3, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) the judgment of the first instance court is dismissed; and (b) the next paragraph does not add the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that was newly made; and (c) therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance court’s judgment, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

Parts used for cutting.

The "the same part as the last part of the second 3th place" is regarded as the "the rate of the territory of the Tongan-gu."

○ The term ‘the fact that the lease was made' under the fourth below is called ‘the fact that the lease was made'.

2. New assertion by the Plaintiff and determination thereof

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The tax authorities have made an administrative interpretation to the effect that the instant case constitutes the transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act. Nevertheless, if the instant case is judged differently, it infringes on the taxpayer’s trust interests in the trust in administrative interpretation, thereby violating the principle of trust and good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Determination

The Plaintiff’s assertion that it is an administrative interpretation of the tax authorities and the factual relations of this case cannot be said to be identical. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the same factual relations is without merit for further review.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is rejected.