Whether the goods already completed at the time of the contract is subject to an interim payment condition under Article 21 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (negative)

Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the time of supply for goods under Article 9(1) of the Act shall be determined by the following subparagraphs: (a) where goods are supplied on the basis of a final payment basis or interim payment basis, or where the goods are continuously supplied on the basis of power or other supply unit which can not be divided on the basis of supply unit; and (b) Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1773 of Feb. 20, 199) provides that the case of the supply of goods or services on the interim payment basis as provided in Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be one of the following cases: (c) Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the term of supply for the goods shall be determined by the interim payment basis, other than the term of supply for the goods already completed on the basis of delegation of Article 9(4) of the Act.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 21 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 9 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1773 of February 20,

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu294 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 896) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu634 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3140)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu30552 delivered on July 26, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the down payment and intermediate payment of the first real estate of this case is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal on

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) on May 18, 1985, the plaintiffs constructed a building of 2nd underground and 6th ground on the land owned by them; (b) on December 23, 1988, that the non-party 1 corporation sold 4,5,6th (the first real estate of this case) of the above building to the non-party 3 Construction Corporation for the price of KRW 800,000; (c) on the date of the contract, the down payment of KRW 140,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 540,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 120,00,000 for the remaining 19,000,000 for each of the above 19,000,000 won for the interim supply of the real estate at the time of the above 19,50,000,0000 won for each of the above provision of value-added Tax (the supply time of the real estate of this case was excluded.

However, Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree provides, however, that the time of supply for goods under Article 9(1) of the Act is determined as follows: Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree provides, where goods are supplied upon completion basis or interim payment condition or where the goods are continuously supplied with power and other supply units which can not be partitioned, each part of the price shall be paid. Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1773 of Feb. 20, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides, “The supply of goods or services under interim payment condition as provided in Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the case falling under any of the following subparagraphs and Article 21(1)1 of the Act provides, “The provision of the above Enforcement Decree shall be deemed to be a specific form of supply prior to completion of the delivery of goods or the provision of services, and it shall not be deemed to be the case of an interim payment upon completion of the supply contract, with the exception of the above interim payment contract:

Therefore, the sale of real estate No. 1 is an interim payment condition, and the time of supply for the part corresponding to the down payment and the intermediate payment is the time of payment for each of them. The time of supply for the said part shall be December 23, 198 and June 30, 1989. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the part concerning the down payment and the intermediate payment of the instant real estate No. 1 in the instant disposition on the premise that the goods completed at the time of the contract is excluded from the supply subject to the interim payment condition, was made before the expiration of the exclusion period, based on the premise that the said goods are excluded from the supply subject to the interim payment condition. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the supply of the interim payment condition, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The argument on this point is with merit.

Meanwhile, as to the remaining portion of the instant disposition, excluding the part concerning the down payment and intermediate payment of the instant 1 real estate, the appeal on this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be dismissed.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the down payment and intermediate payment of the real estate No. 1 of this case is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to this part are assessed against the losing party. It

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)