The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established a company established by conducting housing construction and real estate trade as a business and intended to build and sell 60 households of the apartment of this case for the purpose of selling it in Daejeon at the time of Daejeon, but the remaining 42 households have been sold in lots due to the atmosphere at the time, and the remaining 42 households have not been sold in lots, and if the financial resources of the plaintiff company have not been sold in lots and the plaintiff company temporarily leased 15 households of the unsold 42 households of the unsold 42 households of the unsold 42 households of the outstanding 42 households of the company, and the plaintiff company has become a suitable wholesaler during the lease period, it is difficult for the original wholesaler to sell them in lots. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts.

However, according to Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the value-added tax is required to impose on the supply of goods or services. Article 6(2) of the same Act provides that where an entrepreneur directly uses or consumes goods produced or acquired in connection with his/her own business for his/her own business, such goods as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be deemed the supply of goods. Accordingly, Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for goods used or consumed for the business of supplying goods or services exempt from value-added tax as one of the supply. On the other hand, Article 12(1)11 of the same Act provides that housing lease services shall be exempted as value-added tax exemption.

In full view of the above provisions, in order to impose value-added tax as a result of the so-called supply under the Value-Added Tax Act, it should be the case where an entrepreneur directly uses or consumes the goods produced or acquired in connection with his own business (in this case, a house lease) for his own business. The purport of the above provision is that in a case where there is difficulty in imposing value-added tax due to the entrepreneur’s direct use or consumption of the goods produced or acquired in relation to his own business, the use and consumption of the goods are deemed to be the supply of the goods, and thus, the entrepreneur intends to maintain the basic principle of value-added tax by considering the original basic principle of value-added tax as the use and consumption of the goods. According to the above facts established by the court below, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have renounced the sale of the above apartment and temporarily leased until they become parcelling-out, and even the temporary lease acts constitute the

Therefore, the court below was justified in ordering the revocation of the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case on the premise that the above lease act by the plaintiff is supplied by the person stipulated in the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)