Whether a person who newly constructed a five-story building for the purpose of ownership and has transferred part of the leased part to each lessee while the building was owned by several persons constitutes a real estate sales businessman under the Value-Added Tax Act.

For the purpose of ownership, the 3th floor and the 4th floor are newly constructed and operated by the wife, and the 1st floor and the 2nd floor are leased to the lender, and the 1st floor and the 2nd floor are owned by the lender, and therefore, they are inevitably transferred the 1st floor to each lessee without any choice but the remaining 2,3 and the 4th floor are still owned, and there is no real estate sale, such as the new construction of other buildings than the above building and the sale of real estate, the above building owner is not a de facto real estate sales businessman, but a real estate sales businessman under the Value-Added Tax Act. In addition, the above building owner cannot be deemed a real estate sales businessman under the Value-Added Tax Act, because it is not a real estate sales businessman nor a real estate sales businessman under the sales of real estate.

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

Plaintiff

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu352 delivered on December 1, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff constructed a 4th floor above the ground level of the steel save for the purpose of owning it on December 29, 1979, jointly with the non-party 1, who is his birth, in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, with the purpose of owning it on the ground, and the 3th floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor is operated by the plaintiff's wife non-party 2, and the 1st floor and the 2nd floor are leased to the non-party 3 and owned by the non-party 3 and owned the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st half of the 1979's construction date, and the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st floor above the 1st half of the 1981 to February 26, 1982.

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 Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)