2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 90,59,010 on March 14, 2006 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6.

A. The plaintiff, around June 2005, purchased 8,01-1 and 801-2 (hereinafter "the above real estate") on 1,015,738,00 won from the 2nd underground floor located in Changwon-dong, Changwon-si, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale and purchase on 205 June 8, 2005 (However, the sales contract (Evidence 1) submitted by the plaintiff was written on 200.6,67,70,700,700,700,700,700,700,000,000,000 won and 7.6.6,07,000,000 won and 7.6,00,000,000 won and 7.6,005,000 won and 7.6,07,005,00 won and 7,005,05,00 won and 7.67,07,05.

B. On July 9, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a real estate rental business registration and received a business registration certificate on the same day. Around that time, the Plaintiff received from the non-party corporation a tax invoice for the portion of the building (the supply price of KRW 325,632,00, value-added tax of KRW 32,563,00), and one tax invoice for the portion of the land (the supply price of KRW 101,805,000), and one tax invoice for the portion of the building (the supply price of KRW 393,405,000, value-added tax of KRW 39,341,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 39,341,00) and one tax invoice for the portion of the land (the supply price of KRW 122,92,00,000) and one tax invoice for the portion of the land (the above tax invoice for the building was each issued (hereinafter referred to as “the above tax invoice”).

C. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the final return of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax on July 25, 2005 as an input tax amount that deducts the aggregate of 71,904,000 won (32,563,000 won + 39,341,000 won) stated in the instant tax invoice, and received a refund on August 2005.

D. On March 14, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose an amount of KRW 90,59,010,000, added an additional tax to KRW 18,695,010, which was already deducted for the reason that a part of the requisite entry facts constitutes a “tax invoice that is false” under the main sentence of Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the Defendant denied the tax deduction on the ground that the tax invoice of this case was prepared retroactively after the taxable period to which the time of supply of the said real estate belongs, and thus, cannot be deducted from the input tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 54 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, 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 date of supply of goods or services falls if a tax invoice is issued as of the date of issue of the relevant transaction. Thus, if a tax invoice is received and the value-added tax is faithfully reported pursuant to Article 54 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the taxpayer or the recipient does not gain unjust benefits and does not interfere with the efficient enforcement of the Value-Added Tax system, the said special provision

(2) In addition, since the Plaintiff started a new business by filing an application for business registration on July 9, 2005, the taxable period of value-added tax on the Plaintiff is from July 9, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which is the date of commencing the business pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act. Meanwhile, the time of issuing a tax invoice is after July 9, 2005, when the tax invoice is issued pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Act, which provides for the time of supplying goods, the time of supplying the said real estate is after the issuance of the tax invoice. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the tax invoice in this case within the taxable period to which the time of supplying the said real estate belongs, and it cannot be deemed to have been delivered

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction on the ground that the date of preparation of the instant tax invoice differs from the time of actual supply is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) On the argument that the input tax amount under the tax invoice, which was prepared retrospectively after the expiration of the tax period to which the time of supply belongs, shall also be deducted.

Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Act provides that "the date of preparation, which is a part of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice, is entered differently from the fact," where the actual preparation date of the tax invoice is different from the fact, and even in such a case, if the transaction is confirmed in accordance with the remaining entry items of the tax invoice under Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree, the input tax amount on the relevant transaction should be deducted. However, if the taxable period to which the actual preparation date of the tax invoice belongs belongs is the same (in this case, the "date of preparation" in the tax invoice shall be entered as the actual preparation date, but it shall be limited to the case where the "date of preparation" in the tax invoice shall be entered as the actual preparation date, and it shall be issued and delivered as documentary evidence to determine the value-added tax amount, which is for the purpose of securing the truth of the tax invoice, and it shall be easy for the taxpayer to verify the trade name and the function of the tax invoice as well as the transaction between the taxpayer and the taxpayer.

Therefore, even if a tax invoice prepared after the expiration of the taxable period was prepared retroactively at the time of supply, it constitutes a tax invoice in which part of the requisite entry items under the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is entered differently from the fact, and thus, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771 delivered on November 18, 2004, etc.).

Under the above legal principle, the time of supply for the above real estate is June 21, 2005, where the ownership transfer registration has been made. The plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case, which was prepared retrospectively on June 21, 2005 and June 30, 2005, after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, and applied for the deduction of the input tax amount. Thus, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and it shall not be viewed as different even if the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case in accordance with the special case to issue the tax invoice under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree.

(2) As to the assertion that a tax invoice has been issued within the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs

Article 9(3) of the Act provides that the time when a tax invoice is issued for all or part of the price for the goods and at the same time, prior to the arrival of the time of supply for the goods, shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the tax invoice of this case, stating the remainder after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate, and the date of preparation is retroactively indicated as the date of the payment for the down payment and the balance, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the tax invoice was issued prior to the time of supply for the goods, as provided in the above provision.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, and the instant disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Park Ho-dae (Presiding Judge)