Scope of supply of goods that constitute the cause of the value-added tax;

(b) Scope of “a person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes” under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

(c) The case holding that if a contracting company has had a contracting company take and dispose of sand generated in the course of performing the contracted construction work and deducts the amount of such sand equivalent to the total construction contract amount from the contracting cost when calculating the contract amount after completing the construction work, it constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax;

A. Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 14 subparags. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are the supply of goods which constitute the cause of the taxation of value-added tax, and the delivery or transfer includes all acts causing the transfer of ownership so that the goods may be consumed, in light of the nature of value-added tax, if they are collected and transferred pursuant to all contractual or legal causes.

(b) The term “person who supplies goods or services independently from the business under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act that provides for the person liable to pay the value-added tax” means a person who supplies goods or services with the business form sufficient to create the value-added and with continuous and repeated intent, as well as a person who supplies goods or services produced in his business as well as goods or services produced in connection with it within the scope of his business;

(c) The case holding that the Korea Electric Power Corporation's transfer or transfer of sand produced within the scope of the above construction work, which is subject to value-added tax, to a construction company for consideration, on the ground that, in calculating the total construction cost after completion of construction work, the Korea Electric Power Corporation deducts the amount equivalent to the sand price from the material cost of the construction work among the material cost of the construction work, which was established and implemented by the Korea Electric Power Corporation under the delegation of the above provision, by agreement that all construction work contractors, such as material cost, labor cost, expenses, and expenses, which are invested at the construction site, shall include general management expenses and profits, shall be included in general management expenses, and then the total contract amount shall be determined later by the cost of the construction work, but the Korea Electric Power Corporation deducts the amount of the sand price from the material cost of the construction work among the material cost of the construction work, which was established and implemented by the Korea Electric Power Corporation pursuant to the regulations established and implemented by the Korea Electric Power Corporation under the above regulations

(a)Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 14 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 14 subparag. 3(b) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu286 delivered on September 24, 1985 (Gong1985,1441). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11339 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989,1310)

Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

hill of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu9431 delivered on July 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. If Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 14 subparags. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act gather and gather the goods stipulated under each subparagraph, the delivery or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal grounds is the supply of goods which are the cause of the taxation of the value-added tax, and in view of the nature of the value-added tax, the delivery or transfer of goods shall include all acts causing the transfer of ownership so that the goods can be consumed by the use of the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985). Furthermore, a person who supplies goods or services independently from the business under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the taxpayer of the value-added tax, is a person who supplies goods or services with the form of business to the extent of creating the value-added value-added and who continues to engage in the business as a supplier of goods or services produced at his/her own business, including those who supply goods or services produced within the scope of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu139, Jul.

As determined by the court below, when the plaintiff entered into a contract for the extension of a thermal power plant's coal reclamation project with the non-party company, it is agreed that the above construction contract amount shall not be determined in advance pursuant to Article 176 of the Accounting Regulations of Government-Invested Institutions (Public Notice of Finance), and it shall include general management expenses and profits in all construction contract costs, such as material costs, labor costs, and expenses, invested at the above construction site, and then shall be disposed of by the non-party company after collecting sand generated in the course of performing the above construction work, but the above construction contract amount shall be calculated by the non-party company, but the above construction contract amount shall be deducted from the above construction cost amount of the above construction contract under Article 115 subparagraph 2 of the Accounting Regulations of Government-Invested Institutions established and implemented by the plaintiff company in accordance with the delegation of the above provisions, if the above construction contract amount is deducted from the above construction cost amount of the above construction contract amount, and this shall not be deemed as being delivery or transfer of value-added tax to the non-party company within the scope of the above construction contract, and shall not be justified in the ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the process of the evidence cooking, which was rejected by the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is against non-taxable practices, is justifiable, and there is no illegality in determining evidence against the rules of evidence. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)