Whether it is subject to value-added tax if it is transferred while operating a leisure business with a purchased building;

Even if it was transferred in the course of operating a business with a purchased building, if it can be seen as falling under the business activities of a real estate sales businessman, the income is subject to taxation as business income under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Articles 1(1), 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 2(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu18029 delivered on December 1, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s determination that the transaction of the instant site and inn building is deemed to have been engaged in real estate sales business after recognizing facts as stated in its reasoning is just and acceptable in light of the Plaintiff’s scale, frequency, mode, etc. of real estate transactions. In so doing, there is no error in matters of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles by making a judgment of evidence contrary to the rules of experience or logical rules, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence. Other mere mistake of facts is to criticize the lower court’s legitimate confirmation of facts, which is a

2. It is reasonable to determine that the transfer of real estate in this case is not a transfer of a real estate sales business under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, in case where it can be deemed that it constitutes a business activity as a real estate sales businessman (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8617, Oct. 21, 1994). The court below held that the transfer of real estate in this case is not a transfer of a business that can be socially independent because the transfer of real estate in this case is an organic combination of human and physical facilities and can be deemed as a transfer of a business that can be socially independent. Since the transfer of real estate in this case was made as a part of a real estate sales business that temporarily operates a business registration and temporarily sells it, it does not constitute a transfer of business under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and there is no error

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)