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

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

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du22485, May 18, 2017). As such, a trustee supplies goods upon transfer of property from a truster and management and disposal of the trust property on the premise of such transfer. Thus, even if a truster, a debtor, entrusted the trustee with the property in lieu of performing the existing obligation, designating the creditor as a beneficiary, such right to benefit is naturally attributable to the creditor under a trust contract, and thus, cannot be deemed to exist as a separate supply of goods to the beneficiary of the truster, who is distinct from the transfer of the original trust property.

2.(a)

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly adopted by the court below are as follows.