Whether the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes a case where a mortgagee transfers secured real estate to a third party for realization (affirmative)

In the Value-Added Tax Act, the supply of goods refers to the transfer or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal grounds. Therefore, in the case of transfer of security by means of realization settlement, the transfer by the secured party to a third party by means of conversion of the transferred real estate constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Adde

Article 6 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu683 delivered on March 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 738) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6873 Delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2178)

old Yong-gu et al. (Attorney Lee Jong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of Namdong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu2684 delivered on July 10, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On February 13, 1982, the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, agreed and lent 300,000,000 won to the non-party Kim Jong-tae on May 31 of the same year, and as a security, completed a provisional registration of preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer based on the purchase promise in the plaintiffs' name on February 15 of the same year with respect to the real estate in this case as indicated in its holding, which was owned by the above Kim Jong-type. When the above Kim-type did not pay the above money to the plaintiffs by the due date, the above Kim-type was conducted for the purpose of the above provisional registration, and delivered the real estate to the plaintiffs for the purpose of real estate and intended to exercise the security right. The lower court determined that the above Kim-type was a business operator who sold the above real estate in the above provisional registration and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the above non-party Kim-type Kim-type's provisional registration under the above agreement, and that the plaintiffs could not be seen as having sold the above real estate to 1000,000,000,000,007,000,00, etc.

2. However, in relation to the Value-Added Tax Act, the supply of goods refers to the delivery or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal grounds (see Article 6(1) of the Act). Therefore, in the transfer of security for realization settlement type like the instant case, the transfer by the secured party to a third party of the real estate transferred for security by means of realization constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment otherwise determined cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)