Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap10766 (2016.04.01)
Case Number of the previous trial
Seocho 2015 Schedules2117 (Law No. 15, 30 June 2015)
Title
al n7f l7f x7f l x7f l x76 g x7f g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g x77f g g x76 g x76 g g x76 g g x77f g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g x76 g g g x76 g g x7
Summary
The transfer of the instant house does not correspond to the transfer of a business that can be recognized as an organic combination of human and physical facilities, regardless of the difference between the Plaintiff and the transferee’s business, but rather to a simple supply of goods made as part of the act of a new house construction and sale.
Related statutes
Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on Provision of Goods, Provision of Security and Transfer of Business and Payment of Taxes in Kind.
Cases
Seoul High Court 2016Nu42175 Disposition Revocation of Disposition imposing Value-Added Tax
Plaintiff and appellant
HongA
Defendant, Appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap10766 (2016.04.01)
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 09, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
December 07, 2016
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on February 2, 2015 against the plaintiff on February 2, 2015 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the new argument in the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment in the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article
2. Additional determination
The Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of the transfer of the instant house, even if the identity of the transferor and transferee are not maintained at the time of the transfer of the instant house, it shall be deemed a transfer of the business, and thus, it shall be believed and reported as a transfer of the business. From October 2010 to October 2010, the Plaintiff arbitrarily changed to regard the transfer of the business from the National Tax Service to regard it as a transfer of the business, and thus, the additional tax should be reduced or exempted.
As seen earlier, the transfer of the instant house does not correspond to the transfer of a business that can be recognized as a social independence as an organic combination of human and physical facilities, regardless of the difference between the Plaintiff and K’s business, but is merely a mere supply of goods made as a part of the act of new house construction and sales. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that differs from this premise is unacceptable.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.