1. The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. Although the building of this case was not accurately indicated by the structure, use, etc. of the building of this case, the plaintiff and the non-party company, who is the party to the sales contract, specified the land of this case and its other tangible assets (hereinafter "the building of this case") as "sale real estate". It seems to have clearly agreed that the non-party company would remove the building of this case from the sale and purchase of the building of this case and use the building of this case as it was difficult to conclude that the non-party company's sales contract of this case would remove the building of this case as it was not the sale and purchase price of this case, but the non-party company would not have any duty to remove the building of this case to the non-party 2 as the sale and sale price of this case. The non-party 1 could not be viewed as the sale and sale price of the building of this case, and it could not be viewed that the value of the building of this case would change from the sale and sale price of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the transfer of the building of this case pursuant to the sales contract of this case constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax is just and acceptable. On the other hand, one sales contract was concluded including not only the main building among the building of this case but also the remainder of the building demolished later, and as long as the non-party company planned to operate it as a hotel without removing the building at the time of the sales contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that there was a final agreement to remove the building at the time of the sales contract of this case even if a part of the building was removed by the non-party company, and the removed building is also removed by the non-party company after delivery and ownership transfer registration was made in the future of the non-party company, it is difficult to view that the transfer of the removed building does not constitute the subject of value-added tax

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act.

2. In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in calculating the supply price of the building of this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 48-2 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006) on the ground that the value of the building of this case and the value of the building of this case are unclear among the purchase price stipulated in the sales contract of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the actual transaction price

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)