Whether the transfer of a building constitutes the supply of goods

Since the transfer of the building of this case is to the extent that the Plaintiff’s status as a rental business operator is extinguished, it cannot be deemed as a temporary supply of goods related to the business under the Value-Added Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed as a temporary supply of the building where the building is transferred immediately after the discontinuance of the business.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 93,558,810 against the plaintiff on July 1, 198 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In full view of all the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 (Notice of Tax Payment), No. 3 (Notice of Decision), No. 5-1 (Notice of Decision), No. 2 (Decision), Eul evidence No. 1 (Report of Decision), and No. 2 (Report of Completion of Investigation) without dispute over each establishment, the defendant shall recognize that the plaintiff owned a real estate lease business with 4,17.96 square meters above 00 ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○ Dong and 5-story building No. 4,117.96 meters above 00, and transferred the land and building to ○○○○○○○, and transferred the building site and building to 740,728,568 won among them, and the sale and purchase of the building shall be subject to value-added tax, and shall be deemed to be an transaction subject to value-added tax, and thus, there is no other counter-proof evidence to impose value-added tax on the plaintiff on July 1, 1988.

The defendant asserts that the taxation of this case in accordance with the related Acts and subordinate statutes is lawful. First, the plaintiff is not a real estate sales businessman, and the transfer of the above building cannot be deemed an independent supply of goods, as it is made after the closure of real estate leasing business, and this cannot be deemed a temporary contingent supply of goods related to business under Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, this does not constitute a transaction subject to the assessment of value-added tax, and second, the transfer of the above building after the closure of real estate leasing business by the plaintiff constitutes the self-supply of the remaining goods under Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 49 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prescribes the amount of 0 after the lapse of two years from the date of acquisition of the relevant asset as to the depreciable assets. Thus, the market price of the above building is 0,

Therefore, comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) No. 2 (written request for examination without dispute over establishment; (b) No. 7-1, 2 (written copy of each land register); (c) No. 8 (written report of closure of a building); (d) No. 11-1; and (e) No. 6 (written report of closure of a building); and (d) the testimony of the above witness, which is acknowledged as genuine by the testimony of the witness of No. 2 (written report of closure of a building); (c) the Plaintiff and Non-Party 2 should construct the above building on August 10, 1978 on the ground of the same ○○○○○-dong, and the Non-Party ○○○○-dong, and (d) to pay the remainder to the seller at the time of joint ownership transfer registration under the name of the above building; and (e) to pay the seller the remainder of the real estate at the time of lease of the real estate under the name of the above building at the time of sale; and (e) to pay the remainder between the seller and the real estate on July 198, 198.

Before the completion of the balance payment, all rights and obligations of the above real estate were concluded by a sales contract with the purport that the seller is a seller, and the closure of the above cancer business on September 18, 1987 was made after the closure of the business on or around January 1988. The plaintiff et al., according to the terms of the sales contract as seen earlier, transferred the registration of transfer of ownership to the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 19, 1987 for the loan convenience of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 2, 1987, and there is no counter-

Value-added tax is imposed on a business operator who directly produces or produces goods or services related to such business. Here, the business operator means a person who supplies goods or services with a business form sufficient to create added value and with continuous and repeated intent. On the other hand, the supply of goods and services refers to the act of causing the use of goods or services to be consumed (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu909 delivered on June 28, 198). Thus, according to the above facts of recognition in this case, the Plaintiff’s sales contract to sell the above building to ○○○ on September 2, 1987 was de facto closed, completed the registration of ownership transfer of the building above to ○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2 of the same year, and thus, the transfer of the building in this case can not be seen as the ground for temporary discontinuance of business under Article 8(1)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, as well as the ground for temporary discontinuance of business under Article 8(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case, which deemed the sale of the above building as the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, is erroneous. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

May 1, 1990