Whether a general entrepreneur has transferred the business after the transfer of the building, if the transferee is registered as a simplified taxable person;

As of the end of the taxable period, where the transferee is a simplified taxable person, it does not constitute a comprehensive transfer of business that only replaces the business entity;

Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The purport of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that the transfer of a business shall not be deemed the supply of goods and services subject to value-added tax, and the provision of non-taxation is that the goods and services subject to supply cannot be deemed the goods and services due to the nature of the value-added tax, or that the content of the supply is inappropriate. The transfer of a business does not correspond to the intrinsic nature of the supply of value-added tax, which is the requirement for taxation, but does not correspond to the basic nature of the supply of the value-added tax, and in general, it is anticipated that the transferee would be entitled to the deduction of the input tax amount without exception, as well as the amount of the transaction amount and the amount of value-added tax related thereto are so high that the transferee should be subject to the deduction of the input tax amount without exception. Thus, the transfer of a business not deemed the supply of goods shall be deemed to be a comprehensive transfer of the goods and services, including property for business, and the transfer of the business shall be deemed to constitute a simplified taxable taxpayer (see Article 2030.

In full view of the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was registered as a simplified taxable person on December 10, 202 when acquiring the building of this case and operating a real estate rental business as a general taxable person on December 10, 202, and closed the business in the course of transferring the building of this case and its site to two persons, including Kim ○, etc. on the same day, and that the registration of ownership transfer as to the building of this case and its site was completed as a simplified taxable person on December 15, 2002, and that the registration of ownership transfer was made as a simplified taxable person on December 15, 2002. The court below determined that the business transfer is subject to value-added tax pursuant to Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree even if Kim ○, etc. was not registered as a simplified taxable person immediately after the transfer from the plaintiff as a general taxable person. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.