Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap64740 (No. 28, 2016.09)

Where a contract is revoked even though a business asset is comprehensively acquired, a taxpayer of the already deducted input tax amount shall be the transferee.

Where a contract is canceled after comprehensive acquisition of office officetels, the transferee shall pay the input tax amount deducted by the comprehensive transferor.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu69408 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

AA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap64740 Decided December 28, 2016

November 2017

on October 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax ○, ○○○, and ○○○○ (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on April 8, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's argument at the appellate court to the following, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion of appeal

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, after the imposition of value-added tax which the Defendant originally imposed on Lee Jong-hee, it is unreasonable to impose on the Plaintiff additional dues for the period between the time when the value-added tax was imposed.

B. According to Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the amount of value-added tax to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in this case, SSSS may be acknowledged that: (a) the Plaintiff, who did not pay any balance, filed a sales contract for the real estate of this case succeeded from KS on August 30, 2008; and (b) the competent tax office imposed a value-added tax on 2008 after subtracting it from the sales amount; and (c) paid the value-added tax to Switzerland due to the decline in sales. Accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired fixed business assets and received the input tax deduction; (d) the Plaintiff had already refunded the tax amount due to the cancellation of the sales contract for the real estate of this case; (c) the Plaintiff did not report and pay the amount of value-added tax after deducting from the input tax amount for the initial period of 2008, as well as the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the real estate of this case’s right and obligation for additional payment.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.