The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) The value-added tax under the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the time when the goods are supplied shall be the time when the goods are delivered if the transfer of goods is required (Article 1 of the same Act, and Article 21 of the same Enforcement Decree). However, under Article 9(3) of the same Act, where an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice prior to the time of supply of goods (when the goods are delivered), the time of delivery shall be deemed to be the time of supply of the goods. However, under the Value-Added Tax Act, the tax invoice shall be deemed to be its intention to deduct the purchase tax amount, and at the same time, it shall be deemed to be a taxation material to identify the tax base of the entrepreneur or the other party. In light of this, the “delivery of tax invoice” under Article 9(3) of the same Act refers to the case where the goods are supplied to the person who receives or is supplied to the other party to the goods or the person who is supplied with the goods, and the case where the tax invoice is delivered to a third party other than the original one.

(2) According to the court below's legal reasoning, in order to obtain export financing by a trader who opened a local letter of credit, the plaintiff received a certificate of goods receipt from the trader prior to the delivery of the goods and prepared and attached a copy of the tax invoice in response thereto, and received a loan equivalent to the price of the goods, and actually delivered the goods to the transaction bank, and then prepared and issued a legitimate tax invoice to all them thereafter, and submitted the tax invoice to the government within the prescribed period of the taxable period, and the above tax invoice was lawfully reported and submitted to the government. Thus, the plaintiff prepared and submitted a copy of the tax invoice in order to obtain the export financing prior to the delivery of the goods, and submitted it to the financial institution before the delivery of the goods pursuant to the legal principle as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed the delivery of the tax invoice prior to the arrival date of the tax invoice under Article 9 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the defendant's submission of the copy of the tax invoice in this case to the financial institution, and the disposition of imposing additional tax due to incomplete submission of the tax invoice and the tax cannot be accepted.

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 Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young