Suwon District Court 2008Guhap5880 (Law No. 21, 2009)

Whether it is a real estate sales business or a comprehensive transfer of a real estate rental business

Since a rental act was performed as a part of the real estate sale business regardless of the form of registration of a rental business operator, the transfer of real estate is merely a sale of specific goods as a real estate sales businessman, and it is difficult to regard it as a comprehensive

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

1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the detailed and disposition of attached Form 1, 2, each listed item, value-added tax, and global income in the list of the plaintiffs on October 1, 207.

1. Acceptance of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the submission of this Court to this case are as follows: (a) it excludes the part of the plaintiff's proposal to be additionally judged as follows; and (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, so it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

"The plaintiff thought that the transfer of the real estate of this case constitutes the Do of business excluded from the VAT, and did not receive the tax invoice related to the transfer, and the transferee also did not receive the input tax deduction or the value-added tax refund, and even if the tax invoice was received, the defendant would refund the value-added tax collected from the plaintiffs to the transferee, which would not benefit from tax collection, and even if the plaintiffs faithfully reported and paid the rental income equivalent to KRW 500 million due to the lease of real estate for a period of about 2 years, the disposition of this case that the plaintiffs deemed that the plaintiffs engaged in real estate sales business based on the real estate sales interest for about 20 years, was done out of the predictability of the tax liability, and it violates the principle of substantial taxation, and it was argued that the disposition of this case was in violation of the principle of taxation based on the presumption of subjective intention which was not verified at the time of new construction of the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.