Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

The Plaintiff alleged that the value-added tax on the building portion is not applicable to the supply of goods as it donated his own real estate to the Medical Foundation. However, since the Plaintiff’s supply at the time of real estate rental business operator, the instant disposition

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cheongju District Court 2018-Nu1238 ( January 16, 2019)

QQQ

a) the Director of the Tax Office

December 19, 2018

January 16, 2019

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The content claimed by the Plaintiff in this Court is not different from the content claimed by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial;

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is re-examined with the evidence submitted to the first instance court, the first instance court also examines the plaintiff's argument.

The real estate rental business was substantially closed on June 30, 2016, and on June 20, 2016, which was the day before the cessation of such business.

medical corporation, with respect to the charge donation of the building of this case which was offered to the C medical Foundation for the leasing business

The building of this case is supplied before the closure of real estate rental business by concluding a contract;

Accordingly, the above-paid donation contract constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

of this case's disposition is legitimate because the calculation of the amount of tax is also legitimate, and the above burden is determined to be lawful.

sub-donation contract shall be subject to the transfer of a business that only replaces the management entity while maintaining the identity of the business.

The rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this premise is justifiable.1)

Accordingly, the reasons for this court's judgment shall be c'c' for the first instance court's judgment No. 4 c Medical Corporation's c'.

In addition to the revision to the "Foundation," it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is.

(Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act)

1) In a case where a real estate rental business operator transfers a building, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the building brings about the extinction of the status of the real estate rental business operator.

Therefore, the Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4785 Decided February 22, 1991 asserted that there is no ground for taxation on the transfer of a building under the Value-Added Tax Act.

corporation, however, does not continuously and repeatedly supply goods or services to the principal business and the principal business.

In connection with contingent or temporary supply of goods or services, it shall be subject to taxation, and in addition, goods or uses under the Value-Added Tax Act.

To the extent that the supply falls under the calendar supply, whether the purpose of the supply is to maintain and expand the project or to liquidate, organize, or discontinue the project;

The legal doctrine that is subject to taxation regardless of whether it is or not is established should be deemed to have been established (Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4137 Decided May 25, 1993).

Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8225 Decided October 13, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15424 Decided August 23, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 98Du23 Decided February 23, 2001

Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du17157 Decided February 14, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2459 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.

- 3-

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.