The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence that he employed, the court below recognized the fact that he newly constructed the building of this case in his name as of January 11, 1996 and operated thens with the trade name "○○○○○○" after completing registration of initial ownership preservation on his own name on January 11, 1996, and applied for voluntary auction by ○○ Bank Co., Ltd. as to the building, which was a collateral security right holder, was anticipated to lose the ownership of the building of this case due to the voluntary auction by participating in auction bidding in the name of the plaintiff who was the collateral security right holder of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 201 under the name of the plaintiff on the same day after completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 201, and continued running the house in this case under the name of the plaintiff as of August 16, 200, and transferred the building in this case to Kang○○ as of August 16, 2002.

2. Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if the ownership of property or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom such property or transaction belongs, the person to whom such property or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes, and Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the person to whom the value-added tax is liable to pay taxes, who supplies goods or service independently for business regardless of the existence of profit-making purposes."

In light of the above purport of each of the above legal provisions, in order for ○○○, as the owner of the building of this case, who was engaged in a business in a place of the building of this case, to be faced with a crisis of loss of ownership due to voluntary auction, and to avoid this, the Plaintiff cannot be construed as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act in relation to the facts of this case where the Plaintiff continued to operate the building of this case by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name from the auction procedure and paying the successful bid price, and continuing to operate

Therefore, even if the plaintiff borrowed only the name in the auction procedure, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the plaintiff, who is the owner of the building in this case and the successful bidder, provided the building in this case so that the plaintiff, who is in the position of the successful bidder, can do business free of charge, and the transfer of the building should be viewed as the supply of goods pursuant to Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act, as a matter of course, as a business operator, in light of the above legal principles and facts. In addition, even if Articles 1, 3(1), and 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name provide that the owner in the real estate registry shall be deemed as the actual owner, the provision cannot be deemed as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act. The precedent invoked the grounds of appeal is related to a civil relation, and therefore, it cannot be invoked in this case. The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be adopted. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.