Chuncheon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-4670 ( November 20, 2015)

2014 High Court Decision 158 (Law No. 15, 2014)

The disposition imposing value-added tax on the real estate sales businessman is legitimate.

Article 1(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely an exemplary provision that can be seen as real estate sales, and so long as the real estate transaction comprehensively and repeatedly takes place with continuity and repetition of the business purpose, it does not deny the feasibility of the transaction during the relevant taxable period, even if the transaction falls short of the

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

2015Nu1323 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

LAA

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court 2014Guhap4670 ( November 20, 2015)

2016.13

2016.07.11

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. Each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 000,000 for the second period of March 4, 2013, and value-added tax of KRW 0,000 for the first period of October 31, 2009, and each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2,00,000 for the second period of October 31, 2013 shall be revoked against the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

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