A. Whether the existence of an administrative disposition in an administrative litigation is subject to ex officio examination

B. Effect of seizure of a taxpayer’s real estate without a taxation

(c) Cases where the classification of the value of land and building under the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Adjustment Act is unclear;

A. In an administrative litigation, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the subject of the litigation, is a litigation requirement and cannot be the subject of confession. Therefore, even if the parties challenge the existence, it shall be viewed ex officio when there is doubt as to the existence of the administrative disposition.

B. As long as it cannot be deemed that there was a taxation disposition against a taxpayer, even if the real estate owned by the taxpayer was seized on the premise that the disposition was made, the above seizure also becomes null and void, and thus, it does not mean that the defects of the absence

(c) Cases where the classification of the value of land and building under the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Adjustment Act is unclear;

A. Articles 2, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act (General Administrative Litigation Decision), Articles 124 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 24(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, the proviso to Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu653 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1004) 91Nu1684 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992,93) (Gong1993,739) B. 85Nu81 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1563) 89Nu2813 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong191,1995) 92Nu4246 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192,2438)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu28841 delivered on September 3, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine Plaintiff 2’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In administrative litigation, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation, shall be deemed to be an ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, and since it shall not be an object of confession, even if the parties do not dispute the existence thereof, it shall be determined ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu484, Dec. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu212, Jan. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu653, Jul. 8, 1986).

With respect to the transfer of a building as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the same purport, the defendant indicated the taxpayer as "Plaintiff 1 et al.," and only stated the name of the plaintiff 2, which is the location of the building in which the place of business was decided, in imposing the value-added tax as indicated in the judgment of the court below on the plaintiffs, and it cannot be said that there was a legitimate taxation against the above plaintiff, since it was confirmed that the notice of tax payment was not served on the above plaintiff, it is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

In addition, as long as it cannot be deemed that there was a taxation disposition against the above plaintiff, even if the defendant seized the above plaintiff's real estate, the above seizure is also null and void, and thus, the defects of the above taxation disposition are not cured.

With respect to the second ground:

As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that there was a taxation disposition against Plaintiff 2 as indicated in its argument, and in this case, it is apparent in the record that the said Plaintiff sought the revocation of the said taxation disposition. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the lower court did not have any obligation to clarify whether the said Plaintiff seeks the nullification of the said taxation disposition and that the content seeking the revocation of the said taxation disposition contains the purport of seeking

The assertion runs counter to the judgment of the court below from a different view. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Since real estate transactions are conducted as part of business activities, the issue of whether the transfer of a building constitutes the supply of goods subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act, or whether the income from the sale and purchase of real estate constitutes business income shall be determined according to ordinary social norms, considering whether the sale and purchase of real estate is for profit and the degree of continuity and repetition of business activities in light of the size, frequency, mode, etc. of the sale and purchase of real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14526, Feb. 23, 1993).

Therefore, the court below is just and correct in light of the records, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning, as pointed out in the above, that the act of new construction and transfer of real estate in the judgment of plaintiff 1 was made as part of business activities in light of its purpose, size, frequency, and attitudes, and thus constitutes real estate sales business under the Income Tax Act.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in selling the land and the above ground buildings in the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case was just in accordance with the tax amount calculated by applying the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as to the transfer of new construction of the building in the judgment of the court below, on the basis of the value discussed in the above price reduction process, that the above sale and purchase was confirmed by the National Tax Service, while the above sale and purchase was conducted without separately setting the price of the above land and the above ground buildings as stated in the judgment, but there was no error in the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, misapprehension of legal principles, and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged above.

All arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)