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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance court’s decision as stated below or as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Ten main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be construed as "main sentence of Article 39 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act" in the sixth ten main sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

(2) Articles 6 (1) and 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be construed as "Articles 9 (1) and 15 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act" in 6th 14th sentence

(3) The 8th 14th 14th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied with "Evidences 12 and 13 of the first 14th son."

④ Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be written in attached Form 10 from 10th to the last place of the judgment of the court of the first instance as stated in attached Form 1.

2. Supplement of judgment

In addition to the various circumstances in the first instance trial, the timing when the instant commercial buildings were supplied to the Plaintiff from Kim○○○ cannot be deemed to be the date of lease to a third party (as of July 28, 2016; as of the instant commercial building No. 03) or the date of sale to a third party (as of October 19, 2016; as of the instant commercial building No. 04, Oct. 19, 2016) that was not around June 2, 2016 when the registration of ownership transfer was completed, or the date of sale to a third party (as of the instant commercial building No. 04, the instant commercial building). Accordingly, based on the instant tax invoice, the input tax amount on the instant commercial building cannot be deducted from the output tax amount for the second time,

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Articles 9(1) and 15 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the supply of goods refers to the delivery or transfer of goods based on all contractual or legal grounds. In light of the nature of value-added tax, delivery or transfer is premised on the act of transferring ownership so that the goods can be used and consumed. Even if a business operator concluded a sales contract to sell a building, and even before the purchase price is liquidated or the transfer of ownership is made in the name of the opposite contractual party, if the transaction partner was in fact made an exclusive use and disposal of the building, such transfer constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2926, Oct. 13, 206). According to the agreement that the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of ownership was made on May 3, 2016 at the same time as the sale contract of the commercial building, the transfer registration date of ownership is limited or the remainder of the sale price of the commercial building.

(b) The Value-Added Tax Act is a transaction such as "supply of goods or services to create added value".

Article 15(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the time when goods are delivered or made available shall be the time of supply of goods, inasmuch as our value-added tax takes the form of transaction tax imposed on external appearance of the transaction, not substantial income. Thus, whether a taxpayer is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act ought to be determined based on the transactional basis, not on attribution of profits or expenses incurred in the transaction, but on the basis of transaction of supplying goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du2485, May 18, 2017). Likewise, Article 15(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide for the time when the goods are delivered or made available even in cases where the price for the supply of the goods is not fully paid, such as credit sales or installment sales.

C. Article 15(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if the transfer of goods is not required as real estate, the time the goods are made available". Here, "the time when the goods are made available" refers to "the time when the use thereof was not hindered" or "the time when the use was made does not interfere with" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5600, Apr. 10, 1990). However, as seen earlier, the date of the registration of ownership transfer and the delivery date of the commercial buildings in this case are the same day under the sales contract, and the Plaintiff was able to use the commercial buildings in this case at any time after the date of the registration of ownership transfer, and the Plaintiff was able to use the commercial buildings in this case by taking into account the following facts: (a) the date of the registration of ownership transfer and the delivery date of the commercial buildings in this case is deemed as the same day; (b) the Plaintiff was able to use the commercial buildings in this case at any time after the date of the registration of ownership transfer.

D. The Plaintiff asserts that, based on the Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6610 Decided October 8, 1991, the remaining payment date of the goods is deemed the time of supply for the goods (building). However, the above decision affirmed the judgment of the court below which held that, in a case where the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer before one month of the remainder payment due to the seller’s circumstances, and the buyer paid the remainder, and during that period the buyer leased and used the building, the remainder payment date is deemed the time of supply for the goods. Furthermore, since the ownership transfer registration date and the remainder payment date in the above decision belong to the same taxable period, the input tax amount should be deducted even if the date of preparation of the tax invoice and the actual transaction date are different in accordance with the previous precedents, and the Plaintiff’s remaining payment date belongs to a different taxable period between the registration date of ownership transfer and the sales contract of this case and the sales contract of this case, and the Plaintiff’s remaining payment date of the sales price of this case 300 won and the sale price of this case 1300 million won cannot be invoked as it is.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.