(a) Whether it is subject to value-added tax even where goods, etc. are supplied by chance or temporarily in connection with its main business;

(b) Whether Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act applies where any goods are supplied on condition of interim payment before and after the closure of business;

(a) Where an entrepreneur delivers or transfers goods pursuant to contractual and legal grounds, unless there is a special provision that the value-added tax shall be exempted or imposed, all are subject to the imposition of value-added tax, and it is subject to taxation even when the entrepreneur continues to supply goods, etc. for the main business not continuously and repeatedly, but for the main business. The purpose of supply is to maintain and expand the business, or is to liquidate and adjust the business.

(b) Where goods are supplied on condition of interim payment before and after closure of business, the remaining goods cannot be treated as "goods remaining at the time of discontinuance of business" under the time of supply, and thus, there is no room to apply Article 6 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(a) Articles 6 and 7(b) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 6(4), Article 9(1)2 and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 21(1)4 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6221 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992,2591). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1353 delivered on August 18, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6815 delivered on October 9, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11404 delivered on October 9, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8323 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992,3174 delivered on February 27, 1990). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7283 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong190,821)

[Court Decision 200

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu30893 delivered on May 9, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the event that an entrepreneur delivers or transfers goods due to contractual or legal grounds, unless there is a special provision that the value-added tax shall not be exempted or imposed, the entrepreneur is subject to the imposition of value-added tax, and the entrepreneur’s main business is not continuously and repeatedly supplied goods, etc., but also supplied goods, etc. with respect to its main business, and is subject to taxation, regardless of whether the purpose of supply is to maintain and expand the business or to liquidate the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6221, Jul. 28, 1992; 92Nu8323, Oct. 13, 1992).

In addition, if the supply of goods is not required to move the goods, in principle, the time when the goods are made available is deemed to be the time of supply (Article 9(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act); if goods are supplied on an interim basis, the time each payment is made; and if the time of supply for the goods supplied on or before the closure of business arrives after the closure of business, the cessation of business shall be deemed the time of supply (Article 9(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 21(1)4 and the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act). Thus, if goods are supplied on an interim basis after the closure of business, it cannot be treated as the " remaining goods at the time of the discontinuation of business" under the said time of supply, and Article 6(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu621 delivered on July 28, 1992).

As determined by the court below, the plaintiff newly constructed the building on its land (the first floor and fourth floor above the ground) and operated the import business of photographs, equipment, and wholesale business of the third floor above the ground. The remaining part of the building which was leased from 1986 and operated the lease business was concluded on October 14, 1991 and the sales contract for selling the above site and the building above the ground to the non-party small and medium agricultural cooperatives for KRW 3,800,000,000 was issued with the payment of KRW 50,000 on the same day and the remaining part of the building was transferred to the non-party small and medium enterprise, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the sale contract between 30,000,000,000 won and 30,000,000,000 won before and after the closure of the sale contract, the remaining part of the building can be applied to 30,000,000 won under the condition of supply.

The Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5754 delivered on February 14, 1989 ruled 88Nu5754 delivered on the part of the party members pointing out the theory of the lawsuit is merely an explanation of the general theory about the meaning of the enterpriser, and the Decision 90Nu4785 delivered on February 22, 1991 ruled 9Nu4785 delivered on the part of the party members 90Nu47

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)