The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. 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 addition, 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 provides goods by acquiring the ownership of trust property from the project proprietor and disposing of the trust property on the premise that it takes over the ownership of the trust property according to the trust agreement. As such, it is a separate supply of goods distinct from the transfer of the original trust property solely on the basis that the sales guarantee company refunded the proceeds to