1. On January 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for rectification of KRW 13,690,618 for the first term value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2016.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff completed business registration as a real estate rental business on July 30, 2005, and operated a leasing business in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nos. 720 and 722 (hereinafter referred to as "No. 720, 722," respectively, and referred to as "ttel") acquired on December 28, 2005, and filed a report on the closure of the business with the Defendant on June 24, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, with respect to C and 722 on July 5, 2016, with respect to D and 720 on July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with each purchase price of KRW 1220 million on July 11, 2016 on the date of payment of balance and the date of delivery, and completed each registration of transfer of ownership in the C and D future 722 and 720 on July 11, 2016.

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff issued to C and D a tax invoice with each supply price of KRW 75,298,400 (value of KRW 68,453,091 value-added tax of KRW 68,845,309) at the time of supply for each of the instant officetels buildings.

Items No. 6-3 (Tax Invoice) in the item column “702” is a clerical error in “720 building.”

On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 13,874,119, including output tax amount of the instant officetel building at issue (6,845,309 x 2).

On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant to refund KRW 13,690,618 of the value-added tax No. 1 of 2016 on the ground that the transfer of an officetel at issue constitutes a comprehensive transfer of business and cannot be deemed a supply of goods. However, the Defendant rejected the claim on January 10, 2017 on the ground that the transfer of an officetel at issue does not constitute a comprehensive transfer of business.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 4, 2017, but was dismissed on October 19, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff is a key issue for the following reasons: Gap's 1-7, 14, 15, Eul's 1 (including each number), Gap's 1, and Eul's 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case.