logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.03.20 2013구합1763
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 21, 2005, the Plaintiff opened and operated the instant resort (hereinafter referred to as “instant resort”) in Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a real estate sales contract with D and E (hereinafter referred to as “transferees”) to sell the instant resort’s site and building amounting to 7.5 billion won to the said assignee. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a contract for transfer and acquisition with a content that comprehensively transfers all rights and duties related to the instant resort’s business and human and physical facilities to the transferee.

B. The Plaintiff deemed that the sale of the site and the building of the instant age club was based on the comprehensive transfer of business rather than the supply of goods, and subsequently filed a final return on value-added tax by excluding the sales amount from the sale.

C. However, the Defendant, on May 1, 2013, deemed that it cannot be deemed that there was a comprehensive transfer of business at the time of the transfer of the site and building of the instant age club, and thus, the said transfer constituted the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of value-added tax KRW 390,162,610 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2012

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal for adjudication, but the said claim was dismissed on October 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 12, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion comprehensively transferred all rights and obligations regarding the business of the said age club to the transferee, while selling the site and the building of the instant age club. The transferee comprehensively transferred the business of the instant age club from the Plaintiff, and then ordered F to do so.

arrow