2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax**,*****(including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014 is revoked.

A. On September 20, 1997, the Plaintiff was engaged in the clothing manufacturing business, etc. from the second half of 2008, as it started with the trade name of Sungnam-si ****************(hereinafter referred to as "*").

(b) The Director of the Gangnam-gu Tax Office, while investigating ** the Plaintiff or the recipient of the tax office while conducting a tax investigation on the paroth;

I**The value of supply 80,112,00 won, tax amount of 8,01,200 won, each issued

On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff confirmed the “tax invoice of this case” (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”), and upon reporting value-added tax from February 2, 2008 to February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the omission in the sales declaration of the instant tax invoice of this case, notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Since July 15, 2014, the defendant issued a correction and notification to the plaintiff on July 15, 2014, the value-added tax**,**,***(including additional tax). (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 4, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal rendered the appeal on August 21, 2015.

the claim was rejected. The decision was made to dismiss it.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, before oral pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The date of the supply of the unit price (the unit price) of the product number, the order quantity, and the unit price of the product number.

1 BTPPU134W 1 900 893 5,600 5,000,800 December 08, 2008

2 KRSW41W1W 2,000

1,944 8,000 15,552,000 December 02, 2008

37 December 08, 200 8,000 296,000

3 NTASW04M1 5,700

3,836 9,200 35,291,200 December 24, 2008

1,910 9,200 17,572,000 December 30, 2008

4 NTASW053W1 800

746 8,000 5,968,00 December 12, 2008

54 8,000 432,000 December 19, 2008

Total 80,112,000

In the case of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 below, each transaction is called "No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 transaction of this case".

The Plaintiff’s tax invoice in the course of dispute over the method of parry and payment* normal

***Fatal tax invoice with the Plaintiff’s blank tax invoice.

The report was omitted. However, the fact was completed as follows before the arrival of December 31, 2008 through the inspection by the ordering person according to the transaction under the condition of tallying, the supply of the service related to the instant tax invoice (hereinafter “instant service”).

Therefore, this part belongs to the value-added tax for the second period of 2008. Since the defendant issued the disposition of this case on July 15, 2014 after five years from the date when the value-added tax can be imposed, the disposition of this case shall be revoked as illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a country that files a tax base and tax amount.

Article 19(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the date following the due date of filing a return or the due date of filing a return on the tax base and amount of national tax for each taxable period shall be the date on which national tax may be imposed." Article 3(1) of the same Act provides that "the entrepreneur shall file a return on the tax base and amount of tax for each taxable period or the amount of tax payable for each taxable period to the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business within 25 days after the end of the taxable period." Article 3(1) of the same Act provides that "the taxable period of value-added tax for a entrepreneur shall be from January 1 to June 30, 1, 200 and from July 1, 200 to December 31, 209." Thus, the starting date of the exclusion period of imposition for value-added tax for the second period and from January 26, 2009 to July 26, 2009 shall be deemed to be illegal from the date of 2005.

(2) The former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act").

Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) stipulates that when the supply of services is made at the time of the supply of services, etc., and necessary matters concerning the time of supply shall be determined by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, in the case of ordinary supply, the time when the provision of services is completed (Article 1); when the supply of services is made at the time of completion, interim payment, long-term installment or on other terms, or when the supply unit is continuously supplied (Article 2); where the provision of services is not applicable under subparagraphs 1 and 2, the time when the provision of services is completed and the supply price is determined at the time of each supply (Article 3).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5117 Decided August 21, 2008, etc.)

Meanwhile, according to Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, goods registered as a taxpayer.

In light of the purport of the above provisions, if an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice and delivers it to a third party, it shall be deemed that there was a supply of goods or services, such as the entries in the tax invoice, unless there are special reasons such as the false preparation of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu663, Jun. 23, 1987).

In light of the above laws and the legal principles, the evidence No. 5, No. 7 of this case is examined.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the time when the defendant supplied the service of this case to *** Bamalal, January 23, 2009, the instant disposition is lawful. The prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(1) Where a private document carries the signature, seal or unmanned seal of the principal or his/her agent, other privileges.

Unless there are special circumstances, the document in question is presumed to have been signed, sealed, sealed, affixed, and the document was signed, sealed only when all or part of the document was completed. Thus, there is a need for evidence, such as a solid and reasonable reason and an indirect counter-proof to support the presumption of the authenticity as a completion document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590, Oct. 14, 1994). The fact that the seal affixed on the supplier column of the tax invoice in question is the plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties that the document in question was issued with the sales tax invoice in which the important parts, such as the value of supply and the tax amount column, were received from the plaintiff as a blank, and kept them. Rather, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff had issued the tax invoice in question by arbitrarily supplementing the necessary matters to the extent that it did not dispute the issue of the supply of the tax invoice in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590, Oct. 1, 199).

② Therefore, there is no special reason such as the issuance of a false tax invoice.

(1) if the entries of the above tax invoice were to have been supplied with the same goods or services

It should be noted that the plaintiff provided the service of this case to the defendant on January 23, 2009.

③ 발주처인 주식회사 ㅁㅁㅁ컴바인(이하 'ㅁㅁㅁ컴바인'이라고 한다)이 확인한 납

A product inspection date for the service of this case from January 19, 2009 to January 5, 2009

2009. 1. 21."로 납품완료일이 "2009. 1. 22."로 각 기재되어 있는데, ㅁㅁㅁ컴바인은 위 용역의 발주처인 '주식회사 다른미래', '주식회사 노튼'과 같은 계열사로서 이 부분 검수작업을 할 수 있는 권한을 가지고 있는 것으로 보이고, 위 문서에 기재된 품번과 수량도 원고가 주장하는 내역과 일치하여 그 내용에 신빙성이 있다고 볼 것이고, 위 문서가 이 사건 처분이 내려진 이후에 작성되어 증거로 제출된 것이라고 하여 달리 볼것은 아니다.

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the time of supply of the service in this case is from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2008, on the grounds that the “date of delivery” indicated in the “Date of Delivery” collectively as the “date of December 31, 2008,” but, unless otherwise specified, it is difficult to conclude that the “date” means the time when the service in this case was supplied. Even if not, it is difficult to view that the “the person to whom the service was supplied by the Plaintiff was in a situation where the service was actually supplied by the Plaintiff due to the actual supply of the service * * a failure to keep the calculation of the service in a situation where the service was used.”

④ The Plaintiff, based on the supply specifications prepared by the tallyman of the ordering agency, is equipped with a trading list, stalking.

Although the plaintiff asserts that the list (PACKING LIT) was prepared, the supply specifications (as stated in the evidence No. 4, in the document list, "the "proced statement" is marked) cited by the plaintiff are only indicated in the name of the ordering office "% per cent per cent" at the bottom, and the date of inspection, the date of entry, the name of the factory, the amount of order, the quantity of storage, the date of passing inspection, the date of passing inspection, the date of passing inspection, and the date of passing inspection, and there is no objective document consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, even though the work order (Evidence No. 1), the strust list (Evidence No. 2), the transaction list (Evidence No. 3 and No. 8), and the transaction list (Evidence No. 3 and No. 8) prepared by the ordering office.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the instant service ought to be reverted to the second period of 2008,

In 2008, there was no declaration of output tax amount corresponding to the tax invoice of this case during the second period, and there was no effort to correct this part before the issue of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)

/ former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010)

Article 9 (Transaction Time)

(1) The time of supply for goods shall be the time provided for in the following subparagraphs:

1. Where moving goods is required: The time when the goods are delivered;

2. Where moving goods is not required: The time when the goods are made available;

3. Where subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable: The time when the supply of goods is decided.

(2) The time when services are supplied shall be the time services are provided or goods, facilities or rights are used.

(3) Where an entrepreneur receives all or part of the price for goods or services before the time stipulated under paragraph (1) or (2) and simultaneously issues a tax invoice under Article 16 or a receipt under Article 32 for the price received, the time when such issuance is made shall be deemed the time of supply of the goods or services, respectively.

(4) Matters necessary for the timing of supply under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a person liable for tax payment supplies goods or services, he/she shall attach an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time specified in Article 9 (referring to the time specified otherwise by Presidential Decree, if any). In such cases, where any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, arises after issuing the tax invoice, a tax invoice shall be revised,

may be delivered. < Amended by Act No. 467, Dec. 31, 1993; Act No. 8141, Dec. 30, 2006; Act No. 8825, Dec. 31,

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as corporate entrepreneur, etc., shall issue a tax invoice by electronic means prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "electronic tax invoice").

(3) Where an electronic tax invoice is issued under paragraph (2), a detailed statement of issuance of the tax invoice prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the deadline prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) Any entrepreneur other than those referred to in paragraph (2) may issue and transmit electronic tax invoices pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3). < Amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008>

(5) The head of a customs office shall deliver a tax invoice to an importer for any imported goods, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. < Amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008>

(6) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) may not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is difficult or unnecessary to issue a tax invoice.

(7) Matters necessary for the preparation and issuance of tax invoices, other than those provided for in paragraphs (1) through (6), shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

(2) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the amount of tax payable or deducted from the amount of tax refundable: < Amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26,

1. Where all or some of the requisite entries in a tax invoice issued pursuant to Article 16 are not erroneously or mistakenly entered or mistakenly different from the fact;

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010)

The time of supply for services under Article 22 (Time of Supply for Services) (2) of the Act shall be as follows: Provided, That if the time of supply for services supplied prior to the closure of business arrives after the cessation of business, the time of supply for such services shall be deemed the time of supply: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1048, Dec. 30, 1977; Presidential Decree No. 12428, Dec. 31, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 11080, Jun. 9, 198; Presidential Decree No. 14

The Minister of Strategy and Finance shall have jurisdiction over the matters set forth in paragraph (1).

1. In the case of ordinary supply, when the offer of the service is completed;

2. Supply of services on the basis of the standard payment, interim payment, long-term installment or other conditional terms, or a group of supply thereof;

In the case of continuous supply of an indivisible service, when each part of the price is agreed to be received.

3. In case where the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable, when the provision of services is completed and the amount of such supply is decided.

4. In the case of supply values calculated under the provisions of Article 49-2 (1), (2) and (4), the date on which the preliminary return period or taxable period ends.