2. The appeal cost is borne by the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's refusal to refund value-added tax for the second period portion of value-added tax for the second period of 2013 against the plaintiff corporation AAA on June 23, 2014 shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to refund value-added tax for the second period of 2013 against the plaintiff corporation BB on June 20, 2014 shall be revoked.

The reason why this Court should explain on this case is the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial.

The Administrative Litigation Act is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition in the following paragraphs:

Article 8 (2) of this Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiffs first and after the taxable period to which the time of supply for the instant apartment belongs ( November 26, 2013).

of this case, but within the period for filing the final return of value-added tax for the second period of 2013.

Since tax invoices have been received, Article 75 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply in such cases

Accordingly, it is reasonable to allow the input tax deduction.

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

However, Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" referred to in the proviso to Article 39 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act means any of the following cases, and that "where a tax invoice is issued after the time of supply for goods or services is supplied (including where it is issued pursuant to Article 34 (3) of the Act) in the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs." Thus, the above provision is interpreted in accordance with the literature, and it shall be deemed that the input tax deduction is permitted only when the taxable period to which the date of actual preparation belongs belongs is the same as the time of actual transaction. However, even if a tax invoice is received within the time of final return of value-added tax,

Therefore, the above assertion by the prior plaintiffs cannot be accepted under the different premise.

B. Next, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant tax invoice was prepared and issued retroactively to the taxable period to which the date of supply belongs after the lapse of the taxable period to which the relevant time of supply belongs, but the tax invoice was prepared as of January 10, 2014, which was within the 10th day of the month following the month to which the date of actual supply belongs ( November 26, 2013), and that the instant tax invoice was issued under the special provision for the issuance of this case, and thus does not constitute a false tax invoice.

However, in order to apply the special provision for issuance of this case, the tax invoice shall be issued by the 10th of the month following the month in which the goods or services are supplied, and the date of preparation of the tax invoice shall be stated on the actual transaction date. The tax invoice of this case was not issued by the 10th of the month following the month in which the actual transaction occurred, and the date of preparation stated in the tax invoice is not the actual transaction date, and there is no room to apply the special provision for issuance of this case to the tax invoice of this case.

Therefore, under the different premise, the above assertion by the prior plaintiffs cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.