Where a real estate rental proprietor invests in kind real estate for lease purposes, the time of supply of such real estate;

Where a real estate rental business operator made an investment in kind in the company and the company continued to lease the above real estate because the value of the subject matter of investment and the number of stocks to be granted to him/her has not been determined even though he/she agreed to issue new stocks to him/her, the lessor transferred the above real estate, which is the goods, when he/she accepted new stocks of the company and delivered documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the above real estate which was offered to the

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu170 delivered on December 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

For the first, second and third (1)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above 10th of November 16, 1974 and the above 10th of the company's new shares were issued to the non-party 1 company and the non-party 2 company established a new company with joint investment to build and operate the tourist hotel. The court below decided that the non-party 1 company's new shares were the representative director of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 company's new shares were not subject to the 10th of the above 7th of the 9th of the 197th of the 1977. The court below decided that the non-party 2 company's new shares transfer price of the above 10th of the 197th of the 196th of the 2nd of the 197th of the 197th of the 2nd of the 197th of the 196th of the 1st of the 197th of the 197th of the 1st of the 10th of the 10th of the 7th of the 1.

In the case of the investment in kind of real estate, the time of the supply of the goods should be deemed to be the time of the delivery of the goods regardless of the delivery of documents necessary for the transfer of ownership, and unlike the recognition of the court below, the plaintiff examined the theory on December 31, 1980 on the premise that the plaintiff delivered the real estate to the above non-party company by the execution of the investment in kind. Therefore, it

For the second (2) of the point:

According to the provisions of Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the business operator shall file a report when the registered business operator suspends or closes his/her business pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act. However, according to the provisions of Articles 10, 3, 5 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the time when the business operator starts, suspends or closes his/her business, notwithstanding the registration or report, shall be the actual date of commencement, suspension or discontinuance of business. Therefore, the court below recognized the fact that the court below recognized the fact that the non-party company continuously lent the building of this case for the purpose of the registration of transfer of ownership after December 31, 1980, which delivered documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the non-party company, and it is just to take measures that consider the transfer of the building as the supply of goods for business, and there is no error in the interpretation and application of

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)