If the business transferee is a simplified taxable person, it shall not be deemed a transfer of the comprehensive business.

Even if the comprehensive transfer of the business is made, if the transferee of the business is a simplified businessman, it is excluded from the transfer of the business that does not be considered as the supply of goods because the value-added tax cannot be refunded unlike the general businessman

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 10, 2009 shall be revoked (the written complaint on October 12, 2009 shall be deemed to be written in writing on October 10, 2009).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On February 4, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○, 308 square meters and the same lot number, 277-6 large 308 square meters and 1st underground floor, and the total floor area of 604.61 square meters of general accommodation facilities on the 4th floor (hereinafter “each real property of this case”) from MaA, and operated the accommodation business under the trade name called “innb of the head of △△△”. On November 18, 2005, the Plaintiff comprehensively transferred to MaB all the obligations, including the instant real property and the inn’s equipment, the said goods, and the debts, etc. (hereinafter “transfer”).

B. At the time, the Plaintiff did not file a value-added tax on the following grounds: (a) the transfer of the instant case constitutes “comprehensive transfer or acquisition of a business not deemed a supply of goods” under Article 6(6)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act:

C. However, the Defendant deemed that the instant transfer does not constitute a comprehensive transfer or acquisition of the business exempt from value-added tax, and imposed KRW 35,818,380 on the Plaintiff on October 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 30, 2009, but was dismissed on March 10, 2010.

E. The Plaintiff was originally registered as a general business operator and closed the operation of the hospital on November 18, 2007 when it was transferred to JeongB. AB was registered as a simplified business operator on November 28, 2005 after acquiring the hospital and then closed the business on October 17, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The transfer of this case is a transfer of business that comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations relating to the business, and does not constitute a supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

(2) At the time of the transfer of this case, the Plaintiff asked the person in charge of the △△ Tax Office, and the person in charge gives answers that the transferee is unrelated to the registration as a simplified business operator. Therefore, it is unreasonable to make the instant disposition by the Defendant with the Defendant’s belief and trust at the latest.

(3) The instant disposition goes against the principle of retroactive legislative pride, since it is based on the review plan of whether or not to report value-added tax (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) prepared later than May 2009.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The term "transfer of business not considered as the supply of goods" under Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act refers to a comprehensive transfer of physical, human and rights, etc. including business property, to replace only the management body while maintaining the identity of the business. However, even if such transfer of business is made above, it shall be excluded where a general taxable person transfers the business to a simplified taxable person as stipulated in Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

(2) In the event of a comprehensive transfer of business, the transferee may receive the full refund of value-added tax within 10 days from the date of filing the return in the case of early refund, and 30 days from the date of filing the return even if the general refund is made. Thus, in such a case, the law does not, in principle, regard the transfer of business from the beginning as the supply of goods, and excludes the transfer of business from taxation in the purport that the transfer of business is to ensure the convenience of taxpayers and to omit the timely process that is not necessary separately. However, even if the comprehensive transfer of business was made, the transferee of the business cannot receive the full refund of value-added tax unlike the general business operator, and therefore, Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act explicitly provides that the transfer of business shall be excluded from the case where the general taxable person transfers the business to a simplified taxable person.

(3) Therefore, the transfer of this case constitutes the transfer of business under Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, but since a general taxable person transfers a business to a simplified taxable person under the Value-Added Tax Act, it is not subject to the exemption of value-added tax pursuant to Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the

(4) lack of evidence to support the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the basis of the principle of protection of trust. Moreover, the instant disposition is based on Article 6(6)2 of the Act and Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and it is not based on the instant guidelines, and it is not related to the retroactive legislation.

(5) The instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s dismissal