The summary of this paper has not been written.

Kim Jin-gun (Attorney Yellow-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

The defendant's imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of August 16, 1985 against the plaintiff 3,052,253 won and the value-added tax for the second period of December 1981 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The facts that the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on August 16, 1985 are no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff’s Disposition No. 1 and No. 16, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3 (written resolution of correction of value-added tax), Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3-1, 4 and 5 (written resolution of cancellation of each transfer income tax) are as follows: the Plaintiff’s Disposition No. 1 and the above No. 2 of this case’s Disposition No. 2 of this case’s Disposition No. 1 and the above No. 2 of this case’s Disposition No. 1 and the above No. 2 of this case’s No. 2 of this case’s Disposition No. 1 and the above No. 2 of this case’s No. 1 and the above No. 2 of this case’s No. 710, Oct. 16, 2017>

As to the defendant's assertion of legality of the disposition of this case on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and legal provisions, the plaintiff argued that the transfer of this case's above does not constitute the case where the real estate sales businessman supplies goods, but the defendant is deemed to correspond to it and thus, the above disposition of value-added tax was imposed.

However, according to Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3273 of Dec. 13, 1980), a person who independently supplies goods or services for business purposes regardless of the existence of profit-making profit is obligated to pay the value-added tax pursuant to the above Act. According to Article 1 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1477 of Apr. 1, 1981), which is the supplementary provision, the sale of real estate (including a case of new construction and sale of a building), or brokerage thereof, and sells real estate more than once and more than two times for the purpose of business purposes, the plaintiff is deemed to have operated real estate sales business. Thus, according to the above Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3273 of Dec. 13, 1980), the plaintiff's new construction and sale of real estate is not a real estate sales broker with the first-story or second-story, and the second-story of the first-story.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the above taxation disposition is justified and accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sang-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)