A supplier of goods whose goods are delivered by auction;

If goods are delivered through auction, the owner is the supplier of the goods, and the auction court which is only the auction institution can not be considered as the supplier of the goods.

Articles 2(1), 6(1), Article 14 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

New Shipping Corporation

Head of Yeongdeungpo-do Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu318 delivered on March 29, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provision of Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a person who independently supplies goods for business is obligated to pay value-added tax, and according to the provision of Article 6 (1) of the same Act and Article 14 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the case of delivery or transfer of goods through an auction is also considered to be the supply of goods, the owner shall be deemed to be the supplier of the goods in the case of delivery of the goods through an auction, and the auction court which is only the agency conducting the auction shall not be deemed to be the supplier of the goods in the case of the goods. In this regard, the court below's decision that recognized the supplier as the owner of the goods in the case of the ship auction and imposed the value-added tax on the plaintiff shall be justified and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, and even after examining the records, there is no sufficient evidence to find that the plaintiff was in the condition of closure of the ship at the time of the auction, and there is no violation of law in all arguments.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)