A real estate sales businessman temporarily leases a new building to another temporarily and then sells it again, whether a disposition imposing value-added tax is appropriate;

The imposition of value-added tax is legitimate on the ground that the real estate sales businessman's temporary and temporary lease of a new building to another sales company is not a self-supply if it is sold or sold again.

Articles 6(2) and 12(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu30 Delivered on January 24, 1984

Plaintiff

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu250 delivered on March 14, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff tried to newly construct and sell steel flabs on the ground of Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) in 1978, the steel flabs on the ground of 136 square meters, the office 136 square meters, the 2nd 4th 136 square meters, the 3th 4th 136th 4 square meters, the 3th 11th 7th 7th , the underground room, and the 136th 4th 4th , the 136th 4th nbs (hereinafter "the building of this case") without a business registration, but it was temporarily leased, and the plaintiff did not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence and the judgment of the court below on the grounds that it did not constitute an unlawful taxation disposition of this case for the reason that the plaintiff did not constitute a temporary sale of the building of this case due to an act of violation of the rules of evidence and the records.

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 Young-ju (Presiding Justice)