[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1990.6.15.(874),1176]
A case holding that a taxpayer of value-added tax is not a “person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes”;
The phrase “person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes” under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the taxpayer of value-added tax, refers to the person who supplies the goods or services with the business form sufficient to create the value-added and with continuous and repeated intent. As such, the Plaintiff decided to lease the buildings by means of a tool for living on the land where there was a limitation on the need for living within 3 years from the purchase by Nonparty Land Development Corporation, but the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have sold the above land and buildings with the intention of continuous and repeated sale, if it is inevitable to sell the land and buildings to others for the repayment of liability thereafter.
Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act
Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Head of Ansan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4583 delivered on September 12, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.
In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, who did not have any particular property or occupation other than the above site, newly constructed the building of this case to lease the building on the ground by means of a means of living, and had inevitably sold the above site and the building to the non-party's relocation to the non-party's non-party's relocation for the repayment of debts, since there was a limit on the plaintiff's sale of the land of this case from the non-party's land by the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the non-party's sale contract with the above non-party's construction, and therefore there was no error of law by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of appeal.
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
The person who supplies goods or services independently from the business under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the taxpayer of value-added tax, refers to the person who supplies the goods or services in a continuous and repeated manner with a business form sufficient to create a value-added value added. In light of the records, the court below is justified in the measures that the plaintiff is not selling the land or buildings of this case with a continuous and repeated intention in light of the acquisition of the land of this case and the circumstances leading to the construction and sale of the above ground buildings, as seen above, in light of the acquisition of the land of this case and the circumstances leading to the construction and sale
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)