B. On August 3, 2010, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax of 2006 for the second term portion on the Plaintiff, KRW 179,407,030 for the second term portion, KRW 315,702,810 for the first term portion of value-added tax for 207, KRW 66,172,280 for the second term portion of value-added tax for 2007, KRW 253,191,50 for the first term portion of value-added tax for 209, KRW 290,449, and KRW 680 for the second term portion of value-added tax for 206, KRW 90,594, KRW 680 for the second term portion of value-added tax for 2007, KRW 194,046, KRW 170 for the first term portion of value-added tax for 207, KRW 1619,7960 for each year 209.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

(a) Basic facts;

1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electrical ship parts for automobile use, starting on August 1, 1993, and Nonparty ○○CS Co., Ltd. and ○○○ Co., Ltd. supply the automobile parts to the company that produces and exports the completed automobile.

2) The Plaintiff supplied goods of KRW 6,353,33,000 in value-added tax period from 206 to 2009, among the value-added tax period from 2006 to 2009, and filed a value-added tax return at zero tax rate, along with a purchase confirmation issued after 20 days from the end of the taxable period.

[Attachment 1]

3) In addition, as shown in Table 2, the Plaintiff supplied goods of KRW 32,720,266,00 (the amount excluding the supply amount under Paragraph (a)(2) above) to ○○○CS Co., Ltd. and ○○○, Co., Ltd. during the period of value-added tax from the second to the second period of 2006, as shown in Table 2, and filed a value-added tax return by issuing zero-rate tax invoices without issuing a written confirmation of purchase for all transactions, including the above amount and the supply amount under Paragraph (a)(2) above, exceeding the 10th day of the month following the month in which the goods were supplied, even if the purchase was issued in excess of the first time of supply,

[Attachment 2]

(b) Details of disposition;

1) On August 3, 2010, the Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 635,33,330 (a) and additional tax of KRW 63,330 (a0 less than 10 won), and KRW 63,533,330,330 on the ground that the purchase confirmation issued by the Plaintiff after the lapse of 20 days after the end of the taxable period cannot be deemed a lawful zero-rate document, under Article 11, Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, upon the exclusion of the zero-rate tax rate for the supply value of KRW 6,353,33,30 (a) of the Value-Added Tax Act; KRW 63,530; KRW 307,90; KRW 3060; KRW 360,370; KRW 50,530; KRW 307; KRW 309,50636,57).37

2) Examining each of the above dispositions by taxation period, on August 3, 2010, the Defendant issued a corrective notice to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2006 of value-added tax 179,407,030, value-added tax 315,702,810, value-added tax 66,172,280, value-added tax 2007, value-added tax 73,497,710, value-added tax 42,259,170, value-added tax 42,259,170, value-added tax 2,208, value-added tax 253,191,50, value-added tax 29,290, value-added tax 40,470, total value-added tax 290,470, 209, 2679, and 206 (hereinafter referred to as “instant correction”).

C. On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 21, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties as to the above facts and the circumstances of dispositions, or the whole purport of the arguments can be acknowledged as to Gap's evidence 1, 2, and Eul's evidence 1 through 5 (including each natural disaster).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “A written confirmation of purchase” shall be “a certificate issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs in accordance with a local letter of credit” pursuant to Articles 31 and 91(11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act. However, “within 20 days after the end of the taxable period” under the above provision shall not be deemed a peremptory term, and the term “within 20 days after the end of the taxable period” shall be deemed as the provision of a decoration. In light of the fact that the time limit for

The purchase certificate relating to the supply value under Paragraph (a)(2) above shall be issued from 20 days after the end of the taxable period to 5 days after the end of the taxable period, which affected the business territory of foreign exchange banks and exporters, and since the purchase certificate, which is subject to the actual zero-rate tax, satisfies the substantive requirements, it goes against the purpose of legislation of zero-rate tax application to exclude the application of zero-rate tax or impose penalty tax.

B) Article 54(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a tax invoice may be issued within the 10th day of the month following the month to which the date of supply belongs. However, the aforementioned provision should be interpreted as a voluntary and literary provision, and even if a purchase certificate was issued after the issuance of the zero-rate tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the purchase certificate was issued at the latest, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a tax invoice is issued at the latest, and thus, an additional tax may not be imposed

C) In addition, there is a justifiable reason for not imposing additional tax in the event of a conflict of opinion in statutory interpretation. However, even if exported goods are not issued a written confirmation of purchase or have been delivered at the latest, the Seoul High Court stated that it constitutes zero-rate tax under substantive law, and there is a disagreement in the interpretation of law before the Supreme Court has recently been reversed, so in this part, the imposition of additional tax is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) Due to the nature of value-added tax, whether to apply the zero-rate tax should be determined by whether the pertinent transaction satisfies the requirements for applying the zero-rate tax under the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, the purchase certificate issued after 20 days pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be deemed a legitimate zero-rate

B) In addition, the Plaintiff’s supply of goods prior to the issuance of the purchase approval and delivery of the zero-rate tax invoice without delivering the general tax invoice at the time of the transaction is deemed to have failed to issue the general tax invoice equivalent to the above amount under Article 22(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition imposing the non-taxation penalty tax is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the disposition of this case was unlawful in imposing KRW 635,33,330 in total of value-added tax

A) According to Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, goods (excluding any gold) supplied with a purchase certificate issued on the basis of the “within 20 days after the end of the taxable period,” to which the time of supply for the goods or services belongs, shall be included in the exported goods. As to the transaction on which the value-added tax was imposed on the said portion as set forth in Article 14(1)(2), the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return at zero tax rate by attaching a purchase certificate issued after the lapse of 20 days after the end of the taxable period. Accordingly, the issue is whether the purchase certificate issued on the basis of the “within 20 days after the end of the taxable

B) Therefore, for the following reasons, the purchase certificate issued 20 days after the expiration of the taxable period can not be deemed the supply of the goods covered by the zero tax rate (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2774, May 26, 201).

(1) Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act apply to the supply of exported goods, while Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act also applies to the goods supplied by a business operator through a local letter of credit or a purchase confirmation, including the above exported goods, but “purchase confirmation” means a confirmation issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for the goods belongs,

(2) Meanwhile, the application of zero tax rate in the value-added tax system is recognized as a matter of principle only for exports in order to prevent double taxation, and only for domestic consumption, it is recognized as exceptional or restrictive, as prescribed by statutes, to the extent that it conforms to the national policy purpose of promoting foreign exchange management and the collection of value-added tax, to the extent that it does not undermine the order of foreign exchange management and the collection of value-added tax. Therefore, the pertinent statutes that apply zero tax rate should be strictly construed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du22863, Apr. 9, 2009; 201Du2774, May 26, 2011).

(3) According to the above statutes and legal principles, insofar as the Plaintiff supplied goods to ○○CS Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., a domestic trader, and did not issue a purchase confirmation within 20 days after the end of the taxable period, such transaction shall not be subject to zero tax rate.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the Defendant’s disposition that excluded the zero tax rate of the above part of the transaction on the grounds of the aforementioned 1.b. (1) is lawful.

2) Whether each disposition of the disposition of this case, including penalty taxes for failure to file a return, penalty taxes for failure to issue a tax invoice, and penalty taxes for failure to pay taxes, is unlawful

A) Article 54(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where the actual transaction fact is confirmed by relevant documentary evidence, etc., a tax invoice may be issued by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the supply of goods or services is included if a tax invoice is issued on the date of the relevant transaction as of the date of issue. As seen in Article 54(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff issued a purchase certificate exceeding the 10th day of the month following the month in which the supply of goods is subject to the imposition of each additional tax, but the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return by issuing the zero-rate tax invoice without delivering the general tax invoice at the

(1) As to the penalty tax for failure to issue a tax invoice, with respect to the issuance of the zero-rate tax invoice, along with a purchase certificate issued after the lapse of the 10th day of the month following the date of the supply of the goods, the general tax invoice shall be issued on the original date of the supply and the revised zero-rate tax invoice shall be issued at the time of issuance of the purchase certificate. As such, whether the additional tax may be levied on

(2) In addition, even if an additional tax may be imposed on the Plaintiff for the failure to issue the above tax invoice, the issue is whether the pertinent additional tax may not be imposed on the Plaintiff for the failure to issue the tax invoice, the additional tax for the failure to issue the tax invoice, and the additional tax for the failure to issue the tax invoice.

B) Whether the penalty tax is imposed on the failure to issue the tax invoice

As a result, if a purchase confirmation is not issued by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the goods or services are supplied, the general tax invoice under the general tax rate shall be first issued with the date of supply of the goods, i.e., the date of transaction, and if a purchase confirmation is issued within 20 days from the end of the taxable period in which the goods are supplied, the modified tax invoice under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be issued.

Therefore, if a purchase certificate is not issued by the tenth day following the date of supply of goods, the Plaintiff shall issue a general tax invoice with the date of supply for the goods as of the date of issue, and if a purchase certificate is issued thereafter, a modified tax invoice for zero-rate application should be issued. Nevertheless, as long as the Plaintiff issued a zero-rate tax invoice, which is not a general tax invoice at the original time of supply, even after the purchase certificate was issued after the tenth day following the date of supply, such zero-rate tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a delivery of a tax invoice suitable for the situation of the transaction at the time of issuance of the tax invoice, and thus

C) Whether the imposition of each of the above additional taxes can be deemed to have justifiable grounds

(1) In order to facilitate the exercise of a taxation right and the realization of a taxation claim, penalty tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed pursuant to individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional intent or negligence is not considered. However, in cases where a taxpayer is not negligent in performing his/her duties, and there are justifiable grounds for not being attributable to such failure, it may not be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu14602, May 16, 1997; 2006Du11750, Oct. 23, 2008).

Various additional taxes under the Value-Added Tax Act are a kind of administrative sanctions imposed when a taxpayer neglects the performance of various duties under the Value-Added Tax Act. Such sanctions are not imposed in cases where there are justifiable grounds for not being attributable to the fact that the taxpayer neglected to perform his/her duties, such as when there are circumstances that make it difficult for him/her to know of his/her duties due to the existence of conflicting views due to the intention of tax interpretation beyond a simple scope of land or misunderstanding under the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du666, Aug. 23, 2002).

(2) We examine the instant case.

If we look at the above facts, ① supply of goods subject to zero-rate tax, which are subject to zero-rate tax, to ○○○ Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff violated the provisions on the issuance of zero-rate tax as a result of the failure to timely issue a purchase certificate; ② there was no previous Supreme Court precedent regarding whether the transaction subject to zero-rate tax can be subject to zero-rate tax or the exclusion of zero-rate tax if it is not equipped with the purchase certificate required by the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, it was unlawful to exclude the Plaintiff from the application of zero-rate tax for the reason that the supply of the goods satisfies the substantive requirements to obtain zero-rate tax, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be subject to zero-rate tax at the latest for the reason that the Plaintiff did not obtain zero-rate tax rate. On the other hand, the Seoul High Court Decision 201Nu26843 decided Dec. 27, 201).

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the instant dispositions, the imposition of KRW 635,33,30 in total of the value-added tax in the instant disposition is lawful, and the remaining imposition of penalty tax is unlawful.

In light of this, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2008 among the disposition of this case is unlawful and thus revoked, and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2008 (2008), 90, 680 (2006), 194, 170 (16, 170), 16, 219, 730 (154, 612, 660), and 154, 612, 660 (209), 179, 090 (179, 2006) of value-added tax for the second term of 207 (2007) shall be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the extent recognized in the above 2.c. 3., and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.