Suwon District Court 201Guhap16002 ( October 30, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 201J 2268 (Law No. 19, 2011)

The burden of proving the transfer of business not deemed the supply of goods shall be borne by the person liable for duty payment.

(1) In order to constitute a transfer of a business that does not constitute a supply of goods, the business must be separated from the main body of the business as an organic combination of human and physical facilities so that the business can be recognized as a social independence. The fact that the business is not a simple physical facility but a organic combination is not a real facility, the burden of proof for the reason of the tax disability in value-added tax is the taxpayer.

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

2012Nu11463 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap16002 Decided March 30, 2012

July 4, 2012

July 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first term of February 1, 201 against the plaintiff on February 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff is a business operator who has conducted real estate sales business other than a transfer "non-transfer" that will be the second 9th day of theO, and the plaintiff's inventory assets for business are transferred after a temporary lease.

The plaintiff, who is a real estate rental business operator, shall be from 17th to 17th to 'related', is regarded as "related to the lease business for each real estate of this case."

O From the 5th day below the 4th day to the last day, the following shall be followed:

Although the phrase “comprehensive transfer, including value-added tax,” is written in the column for special agreement, it is difficult to regard the phrase as an agreement on the transfer of lease business for each of the instant real estate because its meaning is unclear. If a real estate lease business is transferred, it is deemed that a detailed agreement related to lease business, such as whether a lease contract is succeeded to as currently concluded for each of the instant real estate, a deposit for lease, and the attribution of Fort Loan, has been necessary.

In light of the fact that "the fifth third party is minor," the plaintiff seems to have used each of the instant real estate held for real estate sales business in temporary rental business and transferred it to the plaintiff."

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.