Seocho 208west 2408 ( December 12, 2008)

It is not exempt from the obligation to report and pay the input tax already deducted after filing a report on discontinuance of business.

As long as a revised tax invoice was issued upon termination of a real estate sale contract, it is not exempt from the obligation to report and pay the input tax amount already deducted.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 24,142,080 and KRW 19,628,010 against the Plaintiff on May 6, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 2004, the Plaintiff decided to purchase 1,36,310,000 won for 1,136,310,00 of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BB 12-10 'B 3rd unit A' from the non-party EE Camp Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party company") as the non-party company (hereinafter "non-party company") and entered into a contract for installment sale with the store A, F, andG, on March 2, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of the non-party company registered as the real estate rental business operator (the non-party company's opening of the business is a 301 business place (hereinafter "non-party 2 business place"), and as the real estate rental business operator on March 14, 2004.

B. After paying part of the sales price to the non-party company during the period from February 24, 2004 to January 31, 2006, the Plaintiff received from the non-party company a total of KRW 441,946,864 (Dispute 1 Business Place) and a tax invoice of KRW 159,694,245 (Dispute 2 Business Place) and received 23 copies of the tax invoice of KRW 10% of the supply price.

C. Among these, a dispute occurred between the non-party company and the non-party company when the plaintiff did not pay any balance, and the non-party company notified the plaintiff of the cancellation of the sales contract as of April 25, 2006. On August 9, 2006, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company seeking the cancellation of the sales contract and the return of the down payment and the intermediate payment. On September 14, 2007, the court of appeal (Seoul High Court 2007Na35826) made a settlement with the content that the non-party company pays 42,50,000 won out of the amount of the claim for the return to the plaintiff by October 14, 2007.

D. On May 18, 2007, the non-party company issued a revised tax invoice of KRW 245,526,038 of supply value in relation to the 1st place of business, following the termination of the sales contract at issue (or KRW 24,52,600 of value-added tax on May 28, 2007), and upon the settlement with the Plaintiff, the non-party company issued each revised tax invoice of KRW 196,420,828 of supply value to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2007, upon the settlement with the Plaintiff.

E. On May 6, 2008, the Defendant imposed KRW 24,142,080 (the first place of business, the input tax amount of KRW 19,642,083 and the additional tax of KRW 4,500), and KRW 19,628,010 (the second place of business, the input tax amount of KRW 15,969,424 and the additional tax of KRW 3,658,590) for the second period of May 6, 2007, including the additional tax, on the input tax amount originally deducted by the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s explanation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On June 26, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds of its dissatisfaction, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 12, 2008.

G. On the other hand, on May 21, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the non-party company on the non-party company on May 21, 2007, and the plaintiff reported the cessation of business on April 21, 2008, which was after receiving the notice of notice of taxation of value-added tax ( April 2, 2008).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-10, 14-17, 19-24, Eul 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The assertion of monthly appeal

Since the Plaintiff reported the cessation of business on May 21, 2007 and reported the closure of business, the non-party company was not a real estate rental business operator for the business disability as of October 12, 2007, which issued the revised tax invoice to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the non-party company’s disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful since the ownership of the key business establishment was completed on May 21, 2007, and the non-party company was not a real estate rental business operator for the business disability as of October 12, 2007, and the ownership of the key business establishment was completed

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act imposes an obligation to issue a tax invoice on a person who supplies goods or services, and Article 59 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax invoice may be revised and issued when the contract is terminated in cases where the patient who has issued the tax invoice fails to collect goods or services due to the cancellation

On April 25, 2006, the non-party company notified the cancellation of the sales contract to the business place at issue on the grounds of the non-party company's failure to pay the remaining balance, but filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the down payment and the intermediate payment by asserting the cause attributable to the non-party company. After that lawsuit was concluded by the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party company, the non-party company immediately after that lawsuit was concluded by the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party company, issued the revised tax invoice by indicating the amount corresponding to the sales price received for the reason that the goods were not supplied due to the cancellation of the contract to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the revised tax invoice when he/she received the tax invoice for the down payment, etc. as a real estate rental business operator and received the tax invoice for the down payment from the non-party company, a new commercial entrepreneur, and reflects it at the time of receiving the revised tax invoice. Thus, the plaintiff is not exempt from

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.