All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 1(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “ Value-Added Tax Act”) provides that the transaction of supplying goods or services is subject to the imposition of value-added tax, and Article 1(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the goods are “any tangible goods and intangible goods having property value” and Article 1(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013) delegated by Article 1(5) provides that “the rights having property value” as one of intangible goods included in the goods.

In addition, Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods shall be “delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.”

Furthermore, since value-added tax is a taxation that recognizes the capacity to pay for the consumption and consumption of the goods, the existence of property value to determine whether the goods are subject to taxation should be objectively determined by the economic utility value of the goods, not by the subjective assessment of the parties to the transaction.

In full view of the content and purport of these regulations and the characteristics of value-added tax, in order to constitute a “supply of rights” as a taxable transaction of value-added tax, the transfer of rights meeting the requirements for goods should be made by recognizing objective property value, such as practical use and economic exchange value.

(2) Upon citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court held that the Plaintiff participated in the greenhouse gas emissions reduction project and sells the Plaintiff’s greenhouse gas reductions to the Energy Management Corporation entrusted by the Government. (2) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on greenhouse gas emissions.