Whether a general taxable person is subject to comprehensive transfer or takeover at the time of business transfer to a simplified taxable person.

In the case that the other party to the transaction is a simplified taxable person with different types of taxation, it does not constitute a comprehensive transfer of business that only replaces the business entity while maintaining the identity of the business, and the above provision is applied as of the end of the taxable period

Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the delivery or transfer of goods shall be deemed either contractual or legal grounds. However, Article 6(6)2 of the same Act provides that “the transfer of business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” shall not be deemed the supply of goods, and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that “the above provision shall be comprehensively succeeded to all rights and duties concerning the relevant business by place of business (excluding cases where a general taxable person transfers a business to a simplified taxable person).” The purport of Article 6(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The transfer of goods or services subject to the supply of value-added tax shall be deemed non-taxation if the goods or services subject to the supply cannot be deemed goods or services due to their nature, or if such supply is inappropriate, it shall be deemed that the transfer of the goods or services subject to the provision of value-added tax shall be deemed non-taxation based on the total amount of taxes to be transferred to the transferee or transferee.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's imposition of each value-added tax against the plaintiffs is legitimate, and that Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, which provides that the general taxable person excludes the transfer of business to a simplified taxable person from the transfer of business subject to non-taxation, violates the principle of no taxation without the law or violates the principle of equality or the principle of proportionality, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension

After finding the facts in full view of the evidence of employment, the court below determined that the defendant's calculation of tax base under Article 48-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act was lawful. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law

If part of a building for business is used for non-business purposes, the defendant's argument that the tax law is applied by analogy without reasonable grounds is not legitimate grounds, since the defendant's argument that the tax law is applied by analogy without reasonable grounds is first raised in the trial, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.