2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition imposing value-added tax of 61,66,670 won on 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 considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6.

A. The plaintiff, around June 2005, purchased 690,381,000 won from ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the above real estate"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale and purchase on June 21, 2005 in the future of the plaintiff as to the above real estate on June 21, 2005 (Provided, That the sales contract (Evidence A1) submitted by the plaintiff, the supply price of the building portion is 48,719,00 won, and the down payment is 310,000,000 won on June 21, 2005; 200,000.310,000 won on June 30, 2005; 310,381,000 won on June 30, 2005; 205, 2067,000 won on which the plaintiff and the stock company received an approval seal on the remaining 3605,705 days on the sales price (the remaining 205 days).

B. On July 9, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for a real estate rental business registration with the above real estate as its place of business and obtained a business registration certificate on the same day. After that, one tax invoice for the portion of the building (supply price of 219,448,000 won, value-added tax 21,945,000 won) and one tax invoice for the portion of land (value 219,48,48,000 won, value-added tax 21,945,000 won), and one tax invoice for the portion of land (value 68,607,000 won, land price of 68,607,000 won, and tax invoice for the portion of the building (value 219,48,000 won, value-added tax invoice for the land price of 30 June 30, 2005), one tax invoice for the portion of value-added tax (value 16,947,2000 won and 208 won).

C. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a final return of value-added tax for the first time on July 25, 2005, and filed a tax return for the total amount of 48,872,000 won (21,945,000 won + 26,927,000 won) stated in the instant tax invoice as an input tax amount to be deducted, and thus, the Plaintiff was refunded the above amount on August 2005.

D. The defendant, at the regular audit of 2005, made the tax invoice of this case retroactive from July 9, 2005, after the lapse of the relevant taxable period (from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005), and thus, the tax invoice of this case was prepared retroactively after July 9, 2005, which constitutes a tax invoice which is different from the fact that part of the requisite facts stated are not deducted or refunded from the output tax amount, and thus, it was pointed out that it was erroneous for the defendant to make a decision of refund even though the input tax amount should not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount, while denying the deduction of the input tax amount in accordance with its purport, the defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 61,66,679 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 54 Subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the actual transaction is confirmed by relevant documentary evidence, etc., a tax invoice may be issued by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the relevant transaction date falls, if a tax invoice is issued as of the date of issuance of goods or services. If a tax invoice is received, and the supplier or the recipient is faithfully reported pursuant to the Special Provision, and the return of value-added tax is not unjust benefits, but it does not interfere with the efficient enforcement of the value-added tax system, i.e., mutual verification function among taxpayers, the said Special Provision

(2) In addition, the plaintiff started a new business by filing an application for business registration on July 9, 2005, and the taxable period is from July 9, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which is the date of commencing the business pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Meanwhile, the time of supply of the above real estate pursuant to Article 9 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the time of issuing the tax invoice, is after July 9, 2005, when the tax invoice was issued. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the tax invoice of this case after the relevant taxable period, even if it was delivered within the taxable period to which the time of supplying the above real estate belongs.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition denying the deduction of the input tax amount is unlawful on the grounds that the date of preparation is different from the date of actual supply, for which the tax invoice of this case was prepared after the lapse of the taxable period.

B. 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 different 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 for the said transaction should be deducted, but it shall be limited to the case where the taxable period to which the actual preparation date of the tax invoice belongs belongs (in this case, the "date of preparation" under the tax invoice shall be entered as the actual preparation date, but it shall be limited to the case where the tax invoice is entered as the actual preparation date or a specific time, and it shall be limited to the case where the tax invoice is issued and delivered as documentary evidence to determine the value-added tax amount, and it shall not be deemed that the tax invoice is prepared and delivered within 70 taxable period retroactively because it constitutes the requisite time of submission of the tax invoice and its function of the tax invoice.

Based on the above legal principles, the time of supply for the pertinent real estate is on June 21, 2005, where the ownership transfer registration has been completed. The Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case, which was prepared on or after July 9, 2005 at the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, and applied for the deduction of the input tax amount. As seen earlier, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and 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, it shall not be viewed differently.

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

Article 9(3) of the Act provides that the time when the payment for the goods is received in whole or in part before the time of supply for the goods arrives and a tax invoice is delivered for the goods at the same time, shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods. However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the tax invoice of this case, stating the remainder after the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate has been completed, and the date of preparation has been delivered retrospectively as of the date of the payment for the down payment and the balance. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the case does not fall under the case where the tax invoice was delivered prior to the time of supply for the goods, and the payment for the goods is made at the same time, and the tax invoice is delivered. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the time of supply for this case is June 21, 2005 for which the

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted and the instant disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount of the said real estate from the output tax amount is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without any justifiable reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.