Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

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

A. On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for construction work as of 610,000,000 won (including value-added tax) on the payment date with respect to the remainder of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”) between ○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction”) and the Plaintiff on May 31, 2004, with the total floor area of 1,299.79m2 (hereinafter “instant building”) which was newly constructed on the ground of ○○○-3, the Plaintiff signed a contract for construction work on June 1, 2004, as of June 31, 2004, without agreement on the payment date.

B. On June 24, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the building of this case from the head of Young-do, Busan Metropolitan City on July 1, 2004, and deducted the total amount of KRW 272,727,272,728, and the total amount of KRW 300,000 from the value of supply on July 1, 2004, and the total of KRW 300,000,000 from the output tax amount on July 31, 2004 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”); and KRW 281,818,181, value-added tax; KRW 28,181, value-added tax; KRW 28,181,81,819; KRW 310,00,000 (hereinafter “tax invoice”) from the output tax amount reported to the Defendant on October 25, 2004 by deducting the total of KRW 545,575,500.

"After that, the defendant issued and delivered each of the tax invoices of this case on June 24, 2004, which was the date of approval for the use of the building of this case, and on the grounds that the tax invoices of this case were prepared and delivered on July 1, 2004 and July 31, 2004, and therefore, the tax invoices of this case constituted "where the necessary entries in the tax invoices of this case are entered differently from the facts" under Article 17 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, upon non-deduction of the input tax amount of each of the tax invoices of this case on June 12, 2006, the defendant corrected and imposed on the plaintiff on June 12, 2006, value-added tax amount of 70,46,090 won (including additional tax) for the second period of 204 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"), / [Grounds for recognition], Gap 1, 34 (including the number No. 1, 6) number No.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was approved prior to the completion of the construction to obtain a loan as security but actually completed the construction of the instant building on July 2004, which is the end of the Value-Added Tax period of 2004. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxable period to which the date of actual preparation of each of the instant tax invoices belongs is inconsistent with the time of supply for the instant construction services, and thus, the instant disposition that deemed each of the instant tax invoices as tax invoices that are different from the fact is unlawful.

(2) Even if the time of supply for domestic affairs and the instant construction services is deemed different from the Plaintiff’s assertion, the input tax amount under the tax invoice of this case at least pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deducted when calculating the value-added tax for two years in 200

(b) Related statutes;

Article 9 (Transaction Time of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the date of preparation, which is a part of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice for which the deduction of the input tax amount is denied, refers to the case where the actual preparation date of the tax invoice is different from the fact of transaction. In such a case, if the transaction is verified as to the remaining entry of the tax invoice under Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the input tax amount on the relevant transaction shall be deducted, but it is limited to the case where the taxable period to which the date of actual preparation belongs belongs and the taxable period to which the actual transaction date belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004; Article 60 (2) 3

In addition, Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the time when the service is supplied shall be the time when the service is supplied or the goods, facilities or rights are used," Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the time when the service is supplied" shall be the time when the service is supplied under Article 9 (2) of the Act, and 1. In the case of ordinary supply, the time when the service is supplied is completed, 2. where the service is supplied continuously through the base payment, interim payment, long-term payment or other refusal, and where the service is supplied unable to be divided by the unit of the supply, the time the service is provided, and where the provision of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 cannot be applied, the time the service is completed and the supply price is determined if the use of the new building is already approved from the construction of the new building for the purpose of administrative regulation at a certain level, but it is usually different from the time the construction is actually completed by both parties after the completion of the construction work at a certain level."

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) In order for the Plaintiff to obtain a loan from the bank as collateral and pay the construction cost, ○○ Construction completed the construction work of the building of this case, and obtained approval for the use of the building of this case on June 24, 2004 after completion of the construction work of the aggregate, elevator, landscape, water supply and drainage, fire fighting, electricity, and communications construction of the building of this case, and thereafter continued the remaining construction until March 2005, including the construction work of the internal gas pipeline to the ○○ Public Co., Ltd., and the guest room management work to the ○○ Information System.

(B) On July 23, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 300,000,000, and KRW 24,281,800 on November 12, 2004, but did not pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 285,718,200. On January 31, 2005, ○○ Construction applied for a provisional attachment on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, such as the instant building, with a claim claim amounting to KRW 38,521,810, total amount of KRW 324,240,010 on February 3, 2005.

(C) On March 4, 2005, the Plaintiff and ○○ Construction agreed that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 110,000,000 to ○○ Construction, and all of the above construction cost and loan claims shall be extinguished, but KRW 50,00,000 on the date of agreement shall be paid KRW 60,000 on March 31, 2005, and the remainder of KRW 60,000 on the date of agreement shall be completed, and in particular, the ○○ Construction shall complete the defective part of the construction, and in addition, it shall deliver the non-delivery-related goods to the Plaintiff immediately.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul 7, and evidence Nos. 7 (including each number), fact-finding results of this court's ○○ Construction, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, even if the approval for use of the building of this case was completed on June 24, 2004, the completion of the building of this case shall be deemed the end of March 2005. Thus, the time of supply for the construction of this case shall also be deemed the end of March 2005, not the time of use approval, but the end of June 24, 2004. Therefore, even if the time of supply for each of the construction of this case is different from the taxable period in which each of the tax invoices of this case was prepared (204, 2005) and the taxable period (1, 2005, 2005) in which the time of the transaction in which the service was provided after the completion of the provision of the service is included, each of the tax invoices of this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount of this case (in rendering the disposition of this case, the date of preparation, which is part of the requisite entry of the tax invoice of this case, shall not be deemed to fall under the different from the date of supply.

D. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the time of supply for services generally provides or uses goods, facilities, or rights, but Article 9 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if an entrepreneur receives all or part of the price for goods or services before the time provided for in paragraph (2) arrives, and such a tax invoice or receipt is issued under Article 16 or 32, the time of the issuance thereof shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods or services, respectively." In light of the language and purport of the above provision, the tax invoice subject to the tax invoice refers to the transaction in which services are actually provided, and the tax invoice is issued for all or part of the price for the services received at the same time as the tax invoice is delivered on July 1, 200, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received part of the price for services at the time of delivery as provided for in Article 19 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act or on July 23, 2004."

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premises.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.