Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is justifiable since the plaintiff's fixed assets sold at auction pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 14 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act constitutes the supply of goods. Since the plaintiff's fixed assets of this case were sold at auction after the actual closure of business, it constitutes a self-supply as remaining goods at the time of closure of business under Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and in this case for which two years have passed after the acquisition of fixed assets, the tax base amount is zero (0) pursuant to Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and in this case, the supply of goods is difficult to view that there is the supply of goods, and therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case should

Article 9 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that subparagraph 1 shall apply to the time when the goods are supplied, subparagraph 2 shall apply to the time when the goods are delivered, if the transfer of the goods is required, and subparagraph 3 shall apply to the time when the goods are delivered, if the transfer of the goods is not required, and subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall apply to the time when the supply of the goods is made available, and Article 9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the necessary matters concerning the time of supply shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 21 of the same Act provides various provisions concerning the time of supply of the goods under Article 9 (1) of the same Act.

On December 2, 1983, the above court decided on the auction price of the fixed property of this case owned by the plaintiff on December 2, 1983 as to the real estate auction case (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court Decision 83ta5669) in the above auction price of 232,20,000 won and the date of payment for the auction price of 232,20,000 won was designated as the date of payment for the auction price on January 12, 1984, the non-party to the above auction contract was permitted to pay the auction price of this case with the above court on January 31, 1984 and the non-party to the above auction contract applied for the permission of payment for the auction price of 208,000 won and the remainder of the auction price of the above auction price of this case after obtaining the permission of payment for the auction price of this case from the above court on January 31, 1984.

However, Article 3 (1) of the Auction Act provides that the successful bidder shall acquire the right which is the object of auction when he pays the auction price in full, so if the successful bidder pays in full the price after the decision of permission of auction becomes final and conclusive, the successful bidder shall not require registration and thereby, in the case of voluntary auction of fixed assets such as this case, the goods shall be made available when the successful bidder pays in full the auction price after confirmation of the decision of permission of auction. In this case, even though the decision of permission of auction was made but the above successful bidder did not pay the auction price, the additional disposition of this case imposed by the defendant on the goods of this auction is considered to be the supply of the goods of the above auction object while the above successful bidder did not pay the auction price, the revocation of the

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-tae (Presiding Judge)