Whether it constitutes a transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods

The transfer of a business between a general taxable person and a simplified taxable person shall not be deemed the supply of goods.

Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 49,125,00 on January 3, 2005 against the plaintiff on January 3, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts which are written or added as stated in the following Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts used or added;

(a)Nos. 2, 15 to 18 shall be followed by:

Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20065, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20035, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20065, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20075, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Feb. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 1, 200).

(b) No. 3, paragraph 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be applied to the former Value-Added Tax Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

C. On the last 3rd and fourth 1st, the instant disposition has been taken into account as follows: “The instant disposition is lawful”.

(d) Nos. 4, 7 and 7 shall be followed as follows:

Article 25(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003), Article 28(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003), and Article 28(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 200), the Maur business of this case can be

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff registered as a general taxable person, and ○○○○, a transferee, registered as a simplified taxable person before the end of the taxable period after the transfer, such transfer between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ cannot be deemed as a transfer of business under Article 6(6)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

E. In Part 5, "Article 25" is added to "Article 25" (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003).

(f)On the 6th page, the following shall be added:

§ 28. Determination, rectification and collection

(1) The tax base and payable amount for any simplified taxable person may be determined or corrected by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 21.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.