Gwangju District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-1522 ( August 14, 2014)

The transfer of the building of this case does not constitute the comprehensive transfer of the business.

(1) As to the transfer of the building of this case, the transactional act related to the transfer of the building of this case is not a comprehensive transfer of the rights and duties concerning the real estate leasing business conducted by the Plaintiff, but a separate special agreement was made on the ancillary issues related to the transfer while transferring the building of this case with a specific transfer, based on the transactional norm or the empirical rule.

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Gwangju High Court-2014-Nu-6103 ( October 22, 2015)

○ Construction Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2013Guhap1522 Decided October 14, 2014

2015.01.08

2015.01.22

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On August 6, 2012, the defendant revoked the tax disposition of the value-added tax ○○○.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including relevant Acts and subordinate statutes), except for the following cases among the judgments of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

o No. 10 of the third side "○○○○ (excluding value-added tax ○○)" is considered as "○○○ (○○○ and value-added tax ○○)".

o Under the third below, the "the same price" shall be the same price [the 00 won in the land of this case and the 00 won in the building of this case [the 00 won separate from the value-added tax]].

o "No effect on. ......" on the part of the 9th page " does not affect........." (and, the sales price of the building of this case includes not only the value of supply but also the value-added ○○○○○○○○○, and the plaintiff issued a tax invoice with respect to the above value-added ○○○○, and issued the tax invoice with respect to the above value-added ○○○○○, and filed a sales report on the basis of the above tax invoice at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax for the second period of February 20

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.