The assertion that the partial lease of the wedding business falls under the transfer of the business by denying the partial lease and directly operating the whole business.

The mere fact that a false business registration or lease contract was made cannot be deemed to have committed a serious act of worship to the extent that it is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and it cannot be deemed to be a trust worth protecting the plaintiff's act by reliance on and imposing tax on it.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The term "transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods under Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply)" means that the transfer of physical, human, rights, and obligations, etc., including business property, is comprehensively transferred to replace only the managing body while maintaining the consistency of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu12082, May 14, 1999; 2002Du8800, Jan. 10, 2003).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below held that the part of the wedding hall among the buildings of this case is "transfer of business not deemed a supply of goods" under Article 6 (6) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the plaintiff transferred all of the physical, human and rights and obligations of the wedding hall, including the building of this case, to Y○○○, by deeming that the part of the wedding hall among the buildings of this case is separate from the parts of the beauty room and restaurant attached thereto and the part of the wedding hall was not operated by the lessee, but directly operated by the plaintiff, and that the part of the wedding hall, including the above incidental part, was not operated by the lessee. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above transfer constitutes "transfer of business". The above judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law

2. On the second ground for appeal

In order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to taxpayers, there is an objective contradictory behavior, and the behavior was caused by the taxpayer's severe acts of worship, and the trust of the tax authorities arising therefrom should be worthy of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du17968, Nov. 26, 199; 2005Du6300, Jan. 26, 2006). Furthermore, the principle of trust and good faith with respect to the tax law of substance which has a strong legal nature under the principle of trust and good faith is allowed only when it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust because it sacrifices the legal nature. In addition, the tax authorities are obliged to investigate and impose tax on the substance of the above tax disposition, as well as to bear the burden of proof with respect to the legality of taxation disposition, and even if the Plaintiff directly operated the above wedding lease contract and beauty room, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff directly reported the above act of violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and that the Plaintiff did not directly own the above business registration and lease it to ○○.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's above assertion is against the principle of good faith, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.