The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.”

Trust under the Trust Act is to have the trustee manage and dispose of the property for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it.

Therefore, where a trustee supplies goods while managing and disposing of the trust property transferred from a truster, the trustee himself/herself becomes a contracting party and performs the trust business. Therefore, the person liable to pay value-added tax should be deemed the trustee who transferred the right to use and consume the goods to the other party through the transaction of supplying the goods, and the mere fact that the profits and expenses incurred from the management and disposal of the trust property ultimately accrue to the truster or the beneficiary who does not have a direct legal relationship with the other party does not change solely on the basis that

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du22485 Decided May 18, 2017). In the case of a housing sale trust where a project proprietor, a truster and a trustee, transfers the ownership of real estate on the grounds of a housing sale trust agreement to a housing sale guarantee company, a trustee and a trustee, the sales guarantee company, upon receipt of the ownership of trust property under a trust agreement from the project proprietor and the disposal and disposal of the trust property on the premise thereof, supplies goods. As such, the mere fact that the sales guarantee company refunded the sale price to the seller based on the housing sale guarantee agreement does not necessarily mean that the supply of separate goods distinct from the transfer of the original trust property exists.