부가가치세 환급세액 지급청구
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.”
The trust under the Trust Act provides the trustee with the management and disposal of the property right for the purpose of the trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it. Therefore, the trustee receives the property right from the truster and supplies goods while managing and disposing of the trust property on the premise of the transfer.
Therefore, even if a truster, who is a debtor, entrusted the trustee with the property to secure the performance of an existing obligation and designated a creditor as a beneficiary, such right to benefit is attributed to the creditor under a trust agreement, and thus, cannot be deemed as the supply of separate goods to the beneficiary of the truster, distinct from the transfer of the trust property to the original trustee due to such designation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du611, Jun. 15, 2017). The same applies to cases where a beneficiary requested the disposal of the trust property under a trust agreement.
On the other hand, if there is no legal relationship or factual basis that is subject to taxation, and if there is no objective legal basis or rationality, such as the case where the tax liability is not established, the defect is significant and apparent and invalid.
2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.
C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) on June 29, 2009, in order to secure the obligation of loans to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is the first beneficiary and the land trust to the Plaintiff as the trustee, and the instant building is transferred to the trustee.