Where real estate rental business is closed and transferred, it shall be taxable by the supply of goods.

In so far as it falls under the supply of goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act, it shall be subject to taxation regardless of whether the purpose of the supply is to maintain and expand the business or to liquidate, adjust or discontinue the business.

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 28,541,950 against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 2002. 6. 12.부터 서울 강남구 ★★동 799-3 소재 ○○빌딩(토지 209.4㎡, 건물 552.45㎡, 이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 사용하여 부동산임대업을 영위하여 오다가 2007. 9. 21. 이 사건 부동산을 홍☆☆에게 양도하였다.

B. The Defendant deemed that the transfer of the instant real estate constitutes the supply of goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and imposed value-added tax 28,541,950 won on the Plaintiff on January 7, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer of the instant real estate, which is the object of lease, is not the supply of goods, but is not the subject of value-added tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the term "the supply of goods subject to value-added tax" refers to the delivery or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal grounds. The taxpayer is a person who independently supplies goods or services for a business regardless of whether it is for profit-making purposes, and thus, if the entrepreneur delivers or transfers goods due to contractual or legal grounds, it is subject to the imposition of value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6221, Jul. 28, 1992; 2006Du2459, Jul. 24, 2008; 2006Du2459, Jul. 24, 2008), unless the entrepreneur continues to supply goods or services continuously and repeatedly in relation to the main business, it is subject to the imposition of value-added tax regardless of whether the purpose of the supply is to maintain or expand the business, or whether it is for liquidation, reorganization or discontinuance of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du7581, Oct. 2584, 2005

However, according to the overall purport of Eul evidence No. 3-1 to Eul evidence No. 6, the plaintiff has operated a real estate rental business after acquiring the real estate of this case and completing the business registration of this case, and sold the real estate of this case to Hong Do Do 10 on November 10, 2009, and the real estate sales contract of this case only includes the sale and purchase of the real estate of this case, and there is no content about the transfer of the real estate of this case, and the transfer of the real estate of this case was made while the lessees of this case moved out of all of the real estate of this case, and the transferee Hong Hong Gun Do Do Do has operated a retail business of the motor vehicle of this case with the trade name of "Gangnam Do Do 2," and the real

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the transfer of the instant real estate offered by the Plaintiff to his own leasing business is the supply of goods subject to value-added tax as a case where the Plaintiff transfers business-related goods due to contractual causes, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case under the above premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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