The meaning of "person who supplies goods or services independently for the business" in Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Since value-added tax is levied on the value added at each stage of production and distribution, "person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes" under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the liability for the payment of value-added tax, shall be treated as a person who supplies goods or services continuously with the form of business to create a value-added and with repeated intent.

Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu216 Decided September 9, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu555 Decided December 9, 1986

Plaintiff

Head of Three Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1091 delivered on April 13, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since value-added tax is levied on the value added at each stage of production and distribution, "person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes" under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the liability for the payment of value-added tax, shall be construed as "person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes" in the form of business to create a value added and who continues to be in the form of business to create a value added (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu555 delivered on December 9, 196).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's taxation of this case against the transfer of mining right of this case was unlawful on the ground that the non-party company, the representative director of which was the plaintiff, did not constitute a person who supplies goods independently from the business under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, on the ground that the plaintiff's acquisition of mining right of this case and the transfer of the mining right of this case on November 29, 1984 to the non-party Yansan Industrial Co., Ltd. until the transfer of the mining right of this case to the non-party Yansan Industrial Co., Ltd., and that there was no difference in the procedure of preparation, such as approval of mining plan for its management or application for forest damage, etc., and that even if the non-party company that was the representative director of this case operated the Yan Industrial Co.

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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)