The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that “The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.”

Trust under the Trust Act is to have the trustee manage and dispose of the property for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to the trustee or disposing of it.

Therefore, where a trustee supplies goods while managing and disposing of the trust property transferred from a truster, the trustee himself/herself becomes a contracting party and performs the trust business. Therefore, the person liable to pay value-added tax should be deemed the trustee who transferred the right to use and consume the goods to the other party through the transaction of supplying the goods, and the mere fact that the profits and expenses incurred from the management and disposal of the trust property ultimately accrue to the truster or the beneficiary who does not have a direct legal relationship with the other party does not change solely on the basis that

(2) On May 18, 2017, according to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court concluded a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with the Defendant as the first first beneficiary with respect to the first instance trust (hereinafter “instant building”) around March 2007 with respect to the real estate of 114-34 and 15 stories above land (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the disposal price to the first beneficiary if the trusted real estate is liquidated, and ② the Plaintiff agreed to pay the disposal price to the beneficiary on August 26, 2011.