The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) falls under “goods” which are valuable as property, such as that goods can be purchased on a specific website by using them.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as “any monetary transaction without any transaction of goods, etc. or any actual monetary transaction under the pre-sale of Door-to-Door Sales Act” under Article 24(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”).

2. Determination

A. Article 24(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that “The act of making a monetary transaction without a transaction of goods, etc. or making a de facto monetary transaction under the pre-sale of Door-to-Door Sales Act” refers to a case where the actual purpose of the transaction is limited to the receipt and payment of money without the exchange of goods, etc., or where the transaction of goods, etc. seems to have been made under the pre-sale of goods, etc., or where the transaction of goods, etc. was made

( Constitutional Court en banc Order 2009Hun-Ba329 Decided April 24, 2012 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2009Hun-Ba329). However, Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act regarding “goods, etc.” defines “goods, etc.” as “goods,” but does not provide for the meaning thereof. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act defines “goods, etc. having property value” as “goods,” and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act defines “goods, etc. as “natural power to manage all tangible things, such as goods, products, raw materials, machinery, and buildings, and electricity, gas, heat, etc.” (see, e.g., Paragraph (1)); “rights”

(2) Paragraph (2). The existence of property value to determine whether goods are goods is not a subjective assessment of the parties to the transaction.