According to Article 17 (1) and (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the value-added tax amount payable by an entrepreneur to the Government shall be the amount of deduction of the input tax amount from the output tax amount, but the deduction of the input tax amount is allowed only when a tax invoice stating the requisite particulars under each subparagraph of Article 16 (1) of the same Act is prepared and delivered at the time of supply for the goods or services and the government is lawfully submitted, so even if the person supplied the goods pays the value-added tax amount to the supplier and submits it to the Government, the tax invoice shall be prepared after the lapse of the taxable period which includes the date of actual supply, and the time of supply for the goods indicated in the tax invoice shall not be allowed unless there are special circumstances, unless the tax invoice is prepared at the time of actual supply, and the tax invoice shall not be allowed to be deducted or refunded from the input tax amount, and even if the plaintiff purchases the tax invoice for the goods or services from the non-party 19,948,800 won and submits it to the Government for the same taxable period, 19181.

However, examining the circumstances leading up to which the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice after the lapse of the taxable period to which the original tax base belongs, and compared it with the records of Nonparty 1’s revised tax invoices. As such, Nonparty 2 supplied the above original tax invoice to the Plaintiff on June 25, 1981 by mistake that the supply of the original tax invoice is subject to zero-value tax, and the Plaintiff issued a revised tax invoice stating the above original supply tax base for the first half of the year 1981, while failing to pay input tax for the above original tax invoice, the Plaintiff discovered the above error after the lapse of the first half of the year 1981, while submitting a revised tax invoice for the first half of the year 1981, and at the same time, the Plaintiff did not receive any revised tax invoice for the said original tax invoice for the first half of the year 1981, which was issued by the Plaintiff, for the first half of the year 1981, and there was no legitimate reason for the Plaintiff to receive any revised tax invoice for the first half of the year 197th period.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and that the instant taxation disposition has been correct. Accordingly, the lower court determined otherwise, on the contrary of its view, that in case where the goods supplier did not collect value-added tax and issued a tax invoice indicating the amount of tax zero by mistake in the application of zero tax rate, but finds errors after the lapse of the taxable period to which the time of supplying the goods belongs, and collects the said tax amount, even if the Plaintiff received and submitted a tax invoice stating falsely the time of supplying the goods without issuing the revised tax invoice, the deduction or refund of the relevant input tax amount should be allowed. Accordingly, the lower court erred in its conclusion by erroneously interpreting the input tax amount to be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount, which affected

This paper is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)