The time of supply for goods where goods are supplied on an interim basis;

In the event that the Plaintiff, while entering into each sales contract on June 1, 1983 with respect to △△△△△△△, etc. of the first floor of the building on the ground of this building between the non-party company and the non-party company, paid 156,760,000 won as the contract-based down payment, and agreed to pay the remainder on September 1, 1983 and September 3, 1983 as the first intermediate payment, the second intermediate payment on March 1, 1984 and March 3, 1984 as well as on the date designated by the above company prior to the Plaintiff's occupancy, as provided in Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, the intermediate goods are supplied, and accordingly, the down payment, which is a part of the price, was paid on May 23 and June 1, 1983, and each of the above items of Article 211 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree, is at the time of supply as well as the contract payment date.

Articles 9(1), 9(4), Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu301 delivered on March 5, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 9(1) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where goods are supplied on an interim basis, the time each part of the price is determined to be the time of supply for the goods, and according to Article 9 of the same Rule, the time each part of the price is determined to be the time of supply for the goods.

따라서 원심이 확정한 바와 같이 원고와 소외 미원종합개발주식회사 사이에, 1983.5.23. □□빌딩 지상1층 ○○호에 대하여, 1983.6.1 위 빌딩 10층 △△△△호, ◇◇◇◇호, ☆☆☆☆호, ▽▽▽▽호, ◎◎◎◎호에 대하여 각 분양계약을 체결하면서, 원고는 위 회사에 계약당일 계약금으로 도합금 156,760,000원을 지급하고, 그 이외의 대가에 대하여는 1983.9.1.과 9.3.에 1차 중도금을, 1984.3.1.과 3.3.에 2차 중도금을, 그리고 원고가 입주하기 이전에 위 회사가 지정하는 날에 나머지 잔금을, 각 지급하기로 약정하였으므로 이는 위 규칙 제9조 가 정하고 있는 바와 같이 중간지급조건부 재화의 공급이라 할 것이고, 이에 따라 그 대가의 일부인 계약금을 1983.5.23.과 6.1.에 각 지급하였으니 위 계약금에 대하여는 각 지급일인 1983.5.23.과 6.1.이 각 재화의 공급시기라 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the supply of goods under Article 9 of the above Rule was not made from the supply of goods subject to interim payment upon the condition of interim payment. However, Article 9 of the above Rule only provides the meaning of the supply of goods subject to interim payment and does not stipulate the time of supply for the goods. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the time of supply for the goods subject to interim payment upon the supply of goods subject to interim payment as stated in the above holding.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)