2. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 13,980,340 (including additional tax) on July 15, 2014 against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014 is revoked.

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

This part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition to the following. Thus, the meaning of the abbreviations used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "the meaning of the words used in this part is the same as the judgment of the first instance).

○ The following shall be added to Chapter 13 on the second ground:

e. Services constituting the instant tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “instant services”) are as follows:

The same as the statement in the table(DDDD was merged on August 19, 2008 by ions corporation).

○ A. A. 3 and 5 shall be added to the second [based grounds for recognition].

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually completed the supply of the instant service prior to December 31, 2008 as indicated below.

Therefore, since the instant service was supplied at the second half of 2008, the instant disposition was unlawful since five years have passed since it was deemed that the Plaintiff supplied the instant service on January 23, 2009, which was the date when the instant tax invoice was prepared, on July 15, 2014, to which the value-added tax was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Therefore, we first examine the time of supply for the instant service.

A) Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) delegates the time of supply for services, etc. to determine necessary matters concerning the time of supply as prescribed in paragraph (4). Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) upon delegation of the said provision, provides that in the case of ordinary supply, when the provision of services is completed (Article 1); when the provision of services is completed; when the provision of services is to be completed; when the provision of services is to be completed; when the provision of services is to be completed; when the provision of services is to be completed; when the provision of services is to be completed; when the provision of services is to be determined at the time of supply at the time of supply at the time of 208.15 billion won (see Supreme Court Decision 2098Du197.25, supra).1985, supra.

B) Meanwhile, Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that when an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall be liable to issue a tax invoice to the supplier, and Articles 22(2)1 and 22(3)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008) provides that an entrepreneur who has not issued a tax invoice and the entrepreneur who has issued a tax invoice shall impose additional tax on the entrepreneur who has issued a tax invoice different from the facts. In light of the purport of these provisions, if an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice and issues a tax invoice to a third party, the entrepreneur shall be deemed to have supplied the goods or services, such as the entries in the tax invoice, unless there are special reasons such as the issuance of the tax invoice by falsity (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu663, Jun. 23, 1987).

C) In full view of the following circumstances with respect to the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that the date of preparation of the instant tax invoice was prior to December 31, 2008 when the Plaintiff supplied the instant service to AA, where there are special grounds to deem that the date of preparation does not coincide with the time of supply for the instant service.

① The Plaintiff consistently enters into the proceedings of the instant pleading with respect to the process of processing services conducted by an employee of the ordering office of the AAA to the AA, so-called brand that directly designs the items to be sold in his own name), and then send the Plaintiff as a subcontractor, a subcontractor, with the intention of manufacturing the garment design time and the cost of delivery, on the basis of this, the Plaintiff processed the garment. Upon completion of the garment processing of the garment processing, the Plaintiff notified the AA to the ordering office of the fact that the garment had been found in the Plaintiff’s workplace, and confirmed whether the garment was manufactured in accordance with the garment’s order, and then affixed a seal on the goods verification column attached to the garmentment. Upon completion of the above work, the Plaintiff’s employee prepared a supply schedule by including the quantity of the garment's goods, and supplied them to the Plaintiff’s warehouse in the name of the ordering office, and then completed the supply of the AA’s goods to the Plaintiff.

② Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence No. 11 and No. 12-1 and No. 2 of the pleadings, BB, who worked for the design office from August 2009 to April 2012, 200, had been sent to this court; upon completion of clothing processing by the Plaintiff, the CC sent the goods to the CC’s factory; and upon completion of inspection by the CC’s employee, the CC sent the goods to the 2A to the 2A as warehouse. Upon completion of the inspection by the 2A, the 2A had been supplied to the 10A by calculating the quantity of clothing supplied by the CC. On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not appear to have provided the 10A’s supply of the goods and services to the 2A, compared the supply specifications submitted by the 2A to the Plaintiff and the transaction specifications submitted by the 10A prior to and after the 20A. The Plaintiff did not appear to have provided the goods and services to the 2A.

③ According to Gap evidence No. 10, on March 10, 2015, where the pre-trial procedure for the instant disposition was in progress, AAA supplied the Plaintiff with a water by the Lone Star number attached to your company on December 31, 2008, but due to any defect in the tally conducted process, us re-tally conducted a tax invoice from January 19, 2009 to January 21, 2009 and completed re-tally conducted a tax invoice issued on December 31, 2008, but the tax invoice was issued after re-tally after delivery, and tally, after re-tally conducted a tax invoice issued on 30% of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued on January 23, 201, and tally collected 20% of the Plaintiff’s additional tax return and tally conducted on July 23, 2014 to 30% of the Plaintiff’s additional tax return to 201, respectively.

④ Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the oral argument in Eul evidence No. 5, the defendant's request for confirmation to AA during the pre-trial procedure of the instant disposition and the delivery confirmation related to the time of supply of the instant service delivered around March 2, 2015 is marked with the name of DDR (hereinafter "DDR") and the seal of the representative director, and the product inspection date of each of the instant transactions constituting the instant service is " January 19, 2009" or " January 20, 209 or January 21, 2009," and it is difficult for the defendant to obtain the above written confirmation confirmation from 2009. The above written confirmation of delivery confirmation from 5 DDR to 209. The above written confirmation of delivery confirmation from 5 DDR to 20D's delivery order, which is no more than 6D's delivery order. However, it is difficult for the defendant to obtain the above written confirmation of delivery confirmation from 5D's delivery order, as well as the above written confirmation of D1.

⑤ In light of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 (Work Orders), 2 (Wearing), 3 (Transaction Statement), 6 (Transaction Statement), and 8 (Transaction Statement) submitted by the Plaintiff, all of the Plaintiff’s statements and shapes appear to have been written continuously and mechanically stated in the Plaintiff’s repeated contract processing service, and the preparation of the above documents appears to have been done as daily business practices of the Plaintiff and the ordering agency at that time. In addition, it was not revealed that there was any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the documents, such as the Plaintiff’s and the ordering agency’s preparation of the documents was made in a lump sum or made in a content different from the actual ones. In light of the above evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 8, the overall purport of the pleadings is acknowledged as follows.

If the part corresponding to the service of this case is confirmed according to the No. 3 and 8 of the Trade Statement (Evidence A) according to the No. 1 of this case, the date specified in the Trade Statement No. 3 and 8 of this case is December 8, 2008, and December 2, 2008 and December 8, 2008 in the case of the second transaction of this case, and December 24, 2008 and December 30, 2008 in the case of the third transaction of this case, and December 12, 2008 and December 19, 2008 in the case of the fourth transaction of this case, the first transaction of this case is written on December 12, 2008 and December 19, 2008, and the direction date on the part of the second transaction of this case was written on December 1, 208, and the Plaintiff appears to have been written on the Plaintiff’s order processing date before and after the second transaction of this case.

In accordance with the product number entry, the date of preparation of the work order for the first transaction of this case under the work order (Evidence A 1) shall be November 18, 2008; the payment date for the second transaction of this case shall be November 25, 2008; the payment date for the third transaction of this case shall be December 9, 2008; the payment date for the fourth transaction of this case shall be Nov. 25, 2008; and the payment date for the fourth transaction of this case shall be Nov. 25, 2008; and the letter processing cost statement (Evidence A 6) shall be written on Nov. 25, 2008.

D) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, even if the Plaintiff supplied the clothing of the instant transaction as a warehouse before December 31, 2008, both of the instant transaction were to have been supplied as an ordering unit, since the contract between the Plaintiff and the AAAAA is a condition of inspection, the supply of the instant service should be deemed to have been completed from January 19, 2009 to January 21, 2009, when the inspection of the goods was conducted.

In light of the purport of the arguments stated in Gap's evidence No. 2 and No. 3, it is difficult to understand the contents of the delivery certificate (No. 5) stating that the product inspection was conducted on Jan. 19, 2009 to Jan. 21, 2009, and even if the defects were discovered in the course of inspection on December 31, 2008, it is difficult to understand that the plaintiff re-tally conducted tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally ther total 1.

In addition, insofar as there is no evidence such as a contract to verify the specific contents of the processing service agreement between the Plaintiff and the AAAAAA which is the basis for the provision of the instant service, the evidence alone, which is currently submitted, cannot be deemed as a condition of tallying that the date of completion of tallying is the time of supply for the service in light of the parties’ intent, form of transaction, transaction practice, etc., rather than the ordinary service contract for which the supply price is determined at the time of completion of the service provision.

E) Therefore, it is deemed that a person who received services due to the actual provision of services prior to December 31, 2008, supplied clothing processed by the Plaintiff according to each of the instant transactions, which constitutes the instant services, to the warehouse of the ordering office, was in a situation in which a person who received services could use the computation of the provision of services.

2) Next, we examine whether the instant disposition was taken after the exclusion period for imposition expires.

A) Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that the period for exclusion from imposition of national taxes shall be five years from the date on which the relevant national tax is assessable, unless a taxpayer evades a national tax by deceit or other unlawful means, or fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return. Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316, Feb. 6, 2009); Article 19(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the date following the due date of filing a tax base and tax amount of the relevant national tax or the due date of filing a tax return shall be the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed." Article 3(1) of the same Act provides that "from the expiration of the tax base and tax amount for each taxable period or tax amount to the head of the competent tax office within 25 days after the expiration of the taxable period."

B) Therefore, according to the starting date between the period for the exclusion of value-added tax on the instant service supplied at the second half of 2008, the starting date between the period for the exclusion of value-added tax shall be January 26, 2009, and according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff: (a) although the part concerning the instant service was omitted, it is recognized that the Plaintiff reported value-added tax for 2008; and (b) otherwise, unless there is any evidence that the Plaintiff’s evasion of value-added tax due to fraud or other unlawful act, the exclusion period for five years shall apply to the instant service (Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is understood to be treated differently without filing a return and underreporting, and Article 26-2(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides for the exclusion period for seven years, shall apply to a return without filing a final return on tax base, and in the case of underreporting, the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax for 5 years shall be deemed to be unlawful under Article 26-2(15.5).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be accepted with the reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked as per Disposition

Relevant statutes

/ 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. When the goods are delivered, in case where the moving of goods is required;

2. When the goods are made available, in case where the moving of goods is not required; and

3. When the supply of goods is decided, in case where the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable.

(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 provided in paragraph (1) or (2) arrives, and at the same time issues a tax invoice provided in Article 16 or a receipt provided in Article 32 with respect to such price, the time of such issuance shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods or services concerned, respectively.

(4) Matters necessary for the time 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 issue 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 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, the time specified otherwise by the Presidential Decree). In such cases, a tax invoice may be revised and issued as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in cases where any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error

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.

(1) The former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008)

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:

1. If all or part of the requisite entries in the tax invoice issued in accordance with Article 16 (1) are not entered by mistake or negligence or are different from the fact;

(3) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply (in cases falling under subparagraph 2, referring to the amount entered in the relevant tax invoice) shall be added to the amount of tax payable or deducted from

1. When a tax invoice under Article 16 (1) has not been issued;

(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 before closure of business arrives after such closure of business, the time of supply for such services shall be deemed the time of supply:

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

2. Where services are supplied on the basis of the standard payment, interim payment, long-term installment or under other conditions, or services are continuously supplied on the basis of which the unit of supply is not possible, when each part of the price is received;

3. Where the provision of services is completed and the value of supply is determined, in case where the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable.

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.