beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
A. The Plaintiff was established on June 12, 2013 by investing 100% of cement cement, an affiliate company of the same group, for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling ready-mixed, slate, aggregate, office concrete, and other cement.
B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the acquisition of business from Dongyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongyang”), a holding company in the same group, to acquire only 120,000,000 won (the acquisition price of August 5, 2013 changed to 117,00,000,000,000 won) from the business places of Asan Factory, Asan Industry Factory, and Haan Factory, three places of business located in the same group, and the portion of the business activities related to “the file manufacturing and supply business” among the mixed fire business and file business activities.
(hereinafter “this case’s acquisition”). C.
Based on the premise that the acquisition level of this case constitutes “the supply of goods” subject to value-added tax (the input tax deduction), the Plaintiff and Dongyang additionally paid 6,468,472,879 won (the supply price of KRW 64,684,728,728,79 = the total purchase price of KRW 66,365,883,782 for August 7, 200 - the purchase price of general business - KRW 1,681,681,54,984) by offsetting the claim against unjust enrichment to be received from the Dongyang. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount by each place of business, and filed an application for refund with the Defendants at an early stage [the sales amount of KRW 6,365,83,94,384,384,386,386,386 - 3786] as follows:
As a result of the investigation, the Defendants determined that the transfer rate of this case constitutes “transfer of business” under Article 10(8)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and denied the Plaintiff’s application for refund of value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, while Defendant Yanan District Tax Office’s application for refund of value-added tax, such as “tax amount B” on December 12, 2013.