Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap34603 ( October 14, 2009)

early 208west0946 ( October 13, 2008)

Whether it should be determined excluding the details of real estate transactions by family members in determining whether it falls under real estate transactions.

The determination of whether a real estate is a real estate sales business shall be made not only by the relevant transfer, but also by taking into account the circumstances before and after the relevant transfer period throughout the entire real estate held by the transferor, and it shall be deemed that the real estate transactions are conducted continuously and repeatedly by the

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

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of global income tax of 68,954,120 won for the first period of 2003 on November 1, 2007, and the imposition of global income tax of 394,556,760 won for the first period of 2003 as of November 1, 2007, and the first period of value-added tax of 84,164,200 won for the first period of 203 as of December 1, 2007.

1. The reasons presented by the court in this decision are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional contents, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(a)on the end of the eighthth sentence, the following shall be added:

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 6 (Supply of Goods) (6) Any of the following shall not be deemed the supply of goods:

2. Transfer of business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where an entrepreneur delivers a tax invoice under Article 16, and as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)

The term "those prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act means comprehensive succession to all rights and duties concerning the business (including a division meeting the requirements of Article 46 (1) of the Act, but excluding a case where a general taxable person transfers a business to a simplified taxable person) to punishment of a place of business (including a case of division meeting the requirements of Article 46 (1) of the Act, in cases of division or merger through division under the Commercial Act, in the same place of business), which is provided for in the main sentence of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act. In such cases, even if a general taxable person succeeds to the relevant

1. The amount receivable;

2. A document concerning accounts payable;

3. Land, buildings, etc. which are not directly related to the relevant business and prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

B. Additional determination

원고 황☆☆는, 원고들이 5번 부동산을 김★★, 안○○에게 매도한 것은 부가가치세 법상 재화의 공급으로 보지 아니하는 사업의 양도에 해당하므로 이에 관하여 부가가치세를 부과한 것은 위법하다고 주장한다.

The term “transfer of business not considered as the supply of goods” under Article 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006) refers to the comprehensive transfer of physical and human facilities, rights, and obligations, etc. including business property, to replace only the managing body while maintaining the identity of the business. Thus, the business should be an organic combination of human and physical facilities that can be separated from the managing body and can be recognized as social independence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8422, Apr. 28, 2006).

원고들의 5번 부동산의 매도행위가 사업의 포괄적 양도에 해당하는지를 보건대, 갑 제8호증의 기재에 의하면 원고들이 김★★, 안○○에게 5번 부동산을 매도하면서 그 매매계약서상 단서사항으로 여관 비품은 현 상태대로 인수한다는 내용이 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수는 있으나, 사업양도의 경우에는 일반적으로 자산ㆍ부채의 평가와 영업권(대고객관계, 사업상의 비밀, 경영조직 등)의 평가 등이 매우 중요한 요소로 작용하는데, 여관 비품을 현 상태대로 인수한다는 점만으로 사업양도가 있었다고 보기 부족하고, 위 매매에서 여관업과 관련된 자산ㆍ부채의 평가나 영업권의 평가가 있었다고 볼 만한 흔적이나 대고객관계ㆍ사업상의 비밀ㆍ경영조직ㆍ인적시설 등 사실관계의 이전이 있었다고 볼 만한 사정이 전혀 보이지 아니하고, 원고들이 위 매도 당시 5번 부동산의 여관을 직접 운영하고 있었다고 볼 증거도 없으며 그 밖에 갑 제8호증, 갑 제 27호증의 각 기재만으로는 5번 부동산의 양도가 여관업의 포괄적 양도임을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고 황☆☆의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2. If so, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.