Whether it constitutes a transaction subject to value-added tax if the only building subject to real estate rental is transferred;

If a real estate rental business operator operating a real estate rental business solely on the same building, sells the above building itself, which is the object of the supply of the service, and takes over the proceeds therefrom, regardless of registration or notification under the Act such as report of closure of business, it shall be deemed to discontinue the real estate service business regardless of whether it is registered or reported under the Act such as report of closure of business. Thus, this cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have discontinued the real estate service business. Since the transfer of the above building is to the extent of the extinction of the status as a rental business operator, it shall not be deemed to be the temporary and contingent supply of the business-related goods under Article 1(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no ground to regard the sale of the above building as the transaction subject to value-added

Article 1, Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Gangwon-gu

Head of Guro Tax Office

1. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 75,350,00 against the Plaintiff on August 21, 1989 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

From July 31, 1986, the Plaintiff operated a real estate rental business from around July 31, 1986 to the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 Dong-dong 636-53, the Plaintiff owned the said building. On April 14, 1989, the Plaintiff transferred the said building to the cooperative on the Seoul Central Machinery Parts, and the Defendant did not pay the said building after filing a final return of value-added tax on July 25, 1989, deeming the transfer of the said building as the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, and imposed value-added tax amounting to KRW 75,350,000 calculated pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 of the Value-Added Tax Act on August 21, 1989.

The plaintiff asserts that the above building was the only building that the plaintiff operated the real estate rental business, and that the plaintiff's real estate rental business was terminated by transferring it as above. Therefore, although the transfer of the above building which caused the termination of the above real estate rental business cannot be viewed as the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, it constitutes the supply of goods, the disposition of this case by the defendant who calculated and notified the above value-added tax to the plaintiff is unlawful.

In full view of the statements in Gap's 3, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1, and Eul evidence 12-1 through 10, and the whole purport of pleadings, the plaintiff was agreed to acquire the above building's security deposit from the plaintiff on July 31, 1986 without filing a report of business registration from around December 5, 1988 when the above Seoul Central Machinery Co., Ltd. operated a real estate rental business on the above building, and the above Seoul Central Machinery Co., Ltd. operated the real estate rental business from around December 5, 1988 after obtaining a permission for the execution of an urban planning project (distribution business facilities) in the location of the above building from the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 10, 1989 to purchase the above building within the business area. Thus, the plaintiff's association entered into a contract with the above union on April 10, 1989 to sell the above building in its name.

In light of the above facts, if the plaintiff who is a real estate rental business operator sells the above building, which is the object of the service supply, and takes over the price in full, it shall be deemed to discontinue the real estate service business regardless of registration or report under the Act such as report of closure of business, etc. In this case, the plaintiff's act of selling the above building shall not be deemed to be a temporary and contingent supply of the goods related to the business under Article 1 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, since the transfer of the building in question would bring about the extinction of the plaintiff's status as the rental business operator, it shall not be deemed that the transfer of the building in this case constitutes a temporary and contingent supply of the goods related to the business under Article 1 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff completed the sales contract on April 14, 1989 as a real estate sales businessman, and therefore the plaintiff's act of selling the building in this case shall not be grounds for taxation.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case imposing value-added tax by deeming the Plaintiff’s above building trade as a transaction subject to value-added tax and imposing value-added tax cannot be avoided due to its illegality. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)