Whether the case constitutes real estate sales business in a short-term manner by newly constructing a telecomto;

While engaging in a short-term maternity business, it transferred the type of business transfer to a related party for reasons of financing, but it constitutes a real estate trading business by recognizing that real estate trading has been continuously and repeatedly conducted in light of the number, size, and quantity of real estate trading by the Plaintiff, etc.

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

Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following shall be:

1. Disposition imposing global income tax, etc. of this case

A. On January 21, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 440 square meters from Kim○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○, and received a business registration certificate on April 3 of the same year. On August 8 of the same year, the Plaintiff newly constructed 1,639.42 square meters of the six-story apartment building on the above ground, and thereafter, carried on the terminal business with the trade name of '○○○○○○○○○○○○○’ from September 31 to 30 of the same month, and transferred the said apartment building to Kim○○ on the 31st of the same month.

B. On March 1, 2005, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff on December 2004, imposed the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 106,921,590 for the second period of 2003 and KRW 102,305,960 for the second year of 2003 on the ground that the transfer of the Plaintiff’s apartment building constitutes real estate sales business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff, while running the franchise business after registering the business of the franchise of this case and constructing the new building, and then transferring the franchise of this case to Kim○○ due to financial background and financial pressure following the new construction of the franchise. Kim○ also takes over not only the franchise of this case but also the franchise of this case as a general business operator who continues to engage in the business of "○○○○" in the franchise of this case as a general business operator who is one of the same taxable types by comprehensively taking over the human rights, physical facilities and duties, etc. necessary for the franchise of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's act of transfer of the franchise of this case is unlawful on the premise that the defendant was engaged in real estate sales for the purpose of short-swing profits even though it constitutes a comprehensive transfer and acquisition of the business of replacing only the managing body while maintaining the identity of the business

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

On July 5, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, and transferred on June 26, 2002. On July 10, 2002, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, and transferred the real estate to the Plaintiff on the 23th of the same month. On January 16, 2003, the Plaintiff newly built ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○, 1).

D. Determination

Real estate sales business under Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by taking into account whether a taxpayer’s real estate acquisition and holding status, the scale and frequency of transfer and acquisition, mode (e.g., shape and condition), transaction partner, etc. is for profit-making purposes, and whether the transfer is continued and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activities, and all the circumstances surrounding the transfer of real estate held by the transferor should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14025, Nov. 7, 195).

In light of the following facts: (a) even before the Plaintiff transfers the franchise building of this case, the Plaintiff purchased and sold the telecom building, commercial building, etc. (the Plaintiff’s husband Kim○, the husband of the Plaintiff, and possession thereof after newly building the telecom), and the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction frequency, size and attitudes recognized in the short term transfer of the apartment building of this case three times during the taxable period of February 2003, and the acquisition and transfer of real estate including the telecom building continuously and repeatedly since 2000, etc., the Plaintiff can be seen to have continuously and repeatedly conducted real estate transactions for profit purposes; and accordingly, (b) the Plaintiff was engaged in real estate sales business with its overall business purpose; (c) thus, it is legitimate that the Plaintiff imposed the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff was conducting real estate sales business on the premise that the Plaintiff was conducting real estate sales business. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit.