The propriety of the disposition imposed by deeming that real estate sales business was conducted;

It is legitimate to impose value-added tax on real estate sales business, since the fact that studio, etc. had been traded even before the acquisition of a leisure building, and the transfer of 4 in a short period of time is continuously and repeatedly conducted real estate transactions for the purpose of profit.

Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On July 1, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 60,624,90 for the first quarter of 202, and KRW 10,971,290 for the second quarter of 2002 by the head of ○○ Tax Office on the 10th of the same month, value-added tax of KRW 79,997,310 for the first quarter of 2003, and value-added tax of KRW 68,565,380 for the second quarter of 201 by the head of ○ Tax Office on the 10th of the same month.

1. Disposition of this case

A. From January 2001 to February 2003, the Plaintiff acquired real estate for accommodation such as ○○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○○ 726-6 located in ○○ ○○ ○○ Gun, and registered a simplified taxable business as an accommodation business, and thereafter registered a simplified taxable business as an accommodation business, and reported and paid the transfer income tax accordingly.

B. On May 2005, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation with respect to the transfer of the instant leisure building by the Plaintiff; (b) determined that the instant leisure building was omitted in the relevant value-added tax and global income tax return even though the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the instant leisure building for the purpose of running real estate sales business, not the acquisition and transfer of the instant leisure building for the purpose of running a lodging business; and (c) determined that the pertinent leisure building was omitted; and (d) notified the Defendants of the tax base and tax amount as indicated in the attached Table; and (e) the Defendants issued the instant

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The Defendants asserted that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The Plaintiff asserted that each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff was engaged in real estate sales business, in light of the following: (a) the developments leading up to the acquisition and transfer of the instant leisure building (the Plaintiff acquired the instant leisure building to operate the lodging business; (b) the Plaintiff had no choice but to transfer the instant leisure building due to the wife’s influor and the Plaintiff’s influor, etc.); and (c) the ○○○ in the instant leisure building acquired on May 13, 199 and operated it for more than two years; and (b) the ○○ influor who acquired on August 13, 2003 was operating for more than two years until now; and (c) the input tax amount related to the acquisition and remodeling costs of the instant leisure building

(b) Related statutes;

○ Subject of taxation under Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Value-added taxes shall be imposed on the following transactions:

1. Supply of goods or services; and

2. Import of goods.

(2) The term "goods" in paragraph (1) means all tangible things and intangible things which have property value.

(3) The term "services" in paragraph (1) means all services and activities other than goods, which have property value.

○ Scope of services under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The services as prescribed in Article 1 (3) of the Act means all of the services and activities falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

1. Construction business;

2. Lodging and restaurant business;

6.Real estate business and leasing business, except for paddy field, paddy field, orchard, stock farm site, forest land, or salt charged-in business;

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any business prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy among construction business and real estate business shall be deemed a business supplying goods.

○ Scope of business under Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

(2) "Business prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" in Article 2 (2) of the Decree means the business of selling or selling real estate (including cases of selling or selling real estate by self-construction or other buildings for residence or non-residential use) or the business of selling or selling real estate at least twice after acquiring real estate at least once during one taxable period for business purpose by indicating its business purpose.

(c) Fact of recognition;

If Eul collected the purport of the whole pleading from the statement of Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff acquired 519 square meters on November 10, 1998, in addition to the leisure building of this case, 00 Do ○○○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ” o, and newly constructed a studio building on the ground, and transferred it on February 23, 200, and transferred five real estate acquired from September 7, 198 to April 6, 2001, from February 23, 200 to May 4, 201 to 3, 200, the plaintiff's wife ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 204.13.28.199.

D. Determination

Real estate sales business under Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by taking into account whether a taxpayer’s real estate acquisition and holding status, the scale and frequency of transfer and acquisition, mode (e.g., shape and condition), transaction partner, etc. for the purpose of earning profits, and the continuity and repetition of business activities to the extent that such transfer is viewed as business activities. The real estate sales business should take into account all the circumstances surrounding the time during which the relevant transfer was conducted throughout the entire real estate owned by the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14025, Nov. 7,

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff purchased and sold studio, electric field, paddy field, forest land, apartment house, sale right, etc. (the Plaintiff’s wife also owns part of multi-household housing after acquiring part of multi-household housing) even before acquiring the instant leisure building. In light of the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction frequency, size, and attitudes recognized as the fact that four of the instant leisure building was successively transferred in a short period, and the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction frequency, size, and mode, and the Plaintiff’s purchase of land and sale after constructing a leisure building or purchasing a old house for remodeling and then selling it after remodeling, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff (in particular, the circumstances that the Plaintiff leased ○○○○○○○ for more than two years), it can be known that the Plaintiff traded real estate continuously and repeatedly for profit-making purposes. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff did not acquire real estate at least once within a taxable period and did not transfer it more than twice, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant disposition of taxation was lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.