"A person who supplies goods or services independently" in Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

The term "person who supplies goods or services independently from the business under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for a person liable to pay the value-added tax" means a person who supplies goods or services in the form of business to the extent that the value-added may be created

Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu629 Decided December 26, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu216 Decided September 9, 1986

Plaintiff

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1123 delivered on November 14, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who supplies goods or services independently for business is a person liable for value-added tax. Here, an independent supplier of goods or services must be called a person who supplies goods or services with a business form sufficient to create a value-added and with continuous and repeated intent (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu629, Dec. 26, 1984; 84Nu629, Dec. 26, 198). In the case of real estate sale (including construction and sale of a building), if the real estate sale (including construction of a new building) indicates the real estate transaction for business purpose or has sales results not less than twice or more than once during one taxable year for business purpose, such transaction shall be deemed a person liable for value-added tax (Article 2 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 1 (1) of the same Enforcement Rule). It is natural that the person who actually belongs to the person liable for tax payment should be the person liable for tax payment.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the construction business, was originally owned by the Nonparty on February 1, 1983, and was constructed as a housing site without obtaining the registration of ownership transfer; (b) the Plaintiff divided this into 33 lots, sold 19 lots among them to others; and (c) the Plaintiff newly constructed 5 building on the non-party’s land on the non-party’s land on which the building of this case was constructed; (d) the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party as indicated in the judgment, and (e) the construction permission was issued by the land owner, and (e) the Plaintiff newly built the land on its own business, and (e) the Plaintiff sold the building of this case to the non-party on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the building of this case to the non-party by claiming the sale of 00 single house 1 omitted, and based on this, the Plaintiff sold the real estate to the non-party during the real estate sale business period of this case.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles. There is no reason for the argument.

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

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)