쟁점세금계산서를 작성시기가 사실과 다른 세금계산서로 보아 과세한 처분의 당부[국패]
propriety of the disposition imposing tax by deeming the issue tax invoice as a false tax invoice different from the fact;
Even if the date of preparation of the tax invoice is written differently from the fact, it may be recognized that the tax invoice in this case was prepared and delivered to the plaintiff.
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
1. The disposition that the Defendant imposed value-added tax of 62,511,070 won on the Plaintiff on March 14, 2006 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. On June 21, 2005, the plaintiff was sold ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. to 700 million won (including value-added tax 49,53,000) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 30, 2005. On July 9, 2005, the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of business with the real estate of this case as the place of business on July 25, 2005, and the date of preparation from ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on June 21, 2005 to ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on June 21, 2005, the tax invoice of this case was prepared on June 30, 2005, and the tax invoice of this case was prepared on June 20, 2005 to 30,50,000 won, and the tax invoice of this case was prepared on June 30, 2005, 207.
2. According to Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice”) shall be delivered to the person who receives the supply under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That where the Presidential Decree prescribes, the time of issuance may vary; 4. Article 17 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not be deducted from the output tax amount; or where a tax invoice under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as “necessary entry items”) is not delivered or is entered in the delivered tax invoice, the Plaintiff may issue the remaining tax invoice to the Plaintiff for the taxable period under Article 16 (1) 2, and since Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the issuance date of the tax invoice shall be different from the actual entry date of the tax invoice under Article 16 (1) 70 million won, it shall not apply to the case where the entrepreneur falls under one of the following subparagraphs:
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.