Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

According to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, if an entrepreneur delivers or transfers goods due to contractual or legal reasons, it shall be subject to value-added tax, unless there is a separate provision that the goods are exempted from tax or non-taxation. The supply of goods which is contingent or temporarily related to the main business rather than the continuous and repeated supply of goods. As long as the supply of goods falls under the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, it shall be subject to taxation regardless of whether the supply is for the continuous maintenance, expansion, or liquidation, reorganization, or discontinuance of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu12132, Jan. 23, 1996; 2005Du17157, Feb. 14, 2008).

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that as long as the plaintiff operated a restaurant in the building of this case on December 27, 2007 and sold the building of this case in accordance with the consultation procedure under Article 16 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Works Act") and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the assigned group, it cannot be viewed differently even if the owner of the building of this case was removed for a flexible maintenance project. In the expropriation procedure under the Public Works Act, Article 14 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act stating that if the owner of the goods subject to expropriation receives the price on the condition of removal, it shall not be deemed the supply of the goods, it shall not be applied up to the removal of the goods acquired through consultation prior to the expropriation procedure, as in the principle of strict interpretation of tax laws and regulations, the above provision cannot be viewed as arbitrary discrimination in light of the purport and purpose of this case without any reasonable reason, and thus, it does not violate the principle of equality under the Constitution.

In light of the contents of relevant provisions and the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles on the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act or the legal principles on unconstitutionality under Article 14 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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.