전부금
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the primary grounds of appeal
A. Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.”
The trust under the Trust Act provides the trustee with the management and disposal of the property right for the purpose of the trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it. Therefore, the trustee receives the property right from the truster and supplies goods while managing and disposing of the trust property on the premise of the transfer.
Therefore, even if a truster, who is a debtor, entrusted the trustee with the property to secure the performance of the existing obligation and designated the obligee as the beneficiary, such right to benefit cannot be deemed to exist, since it is originally attributable to the obligee under a trust contract, and thus, the truster’s supply of separate goods to the beneficiary, distinct from the transfer of the trust property to the original trustee.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du6111, Jun. 15, 2017). Meanwhile, even if the details of a tax return are based on the details of a tax return, if there is no legal relationship or factual basis subject to taxation, and thus, tax liability is not established by itself, such defect is serious, and is obviously null and void.
B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.
(1) The Plaintiff is a company B (hereinafter “foreign company”) in this case.