2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 5-A, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. In order to move the existing factory to another place, the Plaintiff newly constructed a factory of 2,342,78 square meters at ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Construction”) with a contract-based 310 square meters at ○○,527 square meters at ○○○, a contractor, for the purpose of moving the existing factory to another place (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”), after the construction of a new factory of 2,342,78 square meters at ○○, a subcontractor (hereinafter referred to as “construction of the instant factory”), and after the construction of the subsequent integrated construction, after deducting the supply price of 1,009,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”), the Plaintiff calculated the input tax amount of 48,428,574 won from the sales tax amount for the second period of 203.

B. As a result of the investigation, the Defendant determined that the instant construction was completed on June 17, 2003. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice as of September 5, 2003 is deemed to fall under the “tax invoice stating any matters different from the facts” as stipulated in Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition was issued to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2006, which notified the Plaintiff of KRW 63,528,600, which was the value-added tax of KRW 203,528,60, without deducting the input tax pursuant to the instant tax invoice.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant with the National Tax Tribunal to the National Tax Tribunal for a trial of 2006 Before 2828, but was dismissed on December 29, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The primary assertion: The construction period of the instant construction was August 31, 2003 and was completed on September 9, 2003.

(B) Preliminary assertion: Although the instant tax invoice is prepared after the provision of construction services, it is subject to input tax deduction as long as the transaction itself is not false.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) Since the construction of this case was completed before May 2003 at least, and the Plaintiff actually used the factory after the completion of the construction on or around June 2003, the tax invoice dated September 5, 2003 constitutes a tax invoice stating different matters concerning the time of supply for the service, and thus, it cannot be subject to the purchase tax deduction.

(B) Where the preparation date of a tax invoice is written differently from the actual transaction date, ① if the taxable period to which the actual preparation date belongs and the actual transaction date are the same, it may be subject to deduction pursuant to Article 60(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, but ② if the two taxable periods are different, the transaction of the tax invoice is confirmed, even if the transaction of the tax invoice is confirmed differently, it constitutes a tax invoice stating differently from the fact. The instant tax invoice constitutes a subsequent (B) and thus cannot be subject to deduction of an input tax amount.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence as seen earlier, evidence Nos. 3 through 8, evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including each number, if any), and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal at the time of completion of construction of appraiser’s post office.

(1) On December 3, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a construction permit on December 6, 2002 to newly construct a two-story food factory with a total floor area of 1,995 square meters and a freezing warehouse with a total floor area of 342 square meters; and (b) entered into a temporary contract on December 6, 2002 with ○○ General Construction with a construction cost of 792,00,000, a construction period of 1,185,800,000, and entered into this contract on March 31, 2003. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17817, Dec. 27, 2002>

(2) As the construction of this case did not proceed as scheduled after the commencement, the Plaintiff revised the plan to construct only food factories first, and obtained permission to change the contents of excluding freezing warehouses subject to the original construction permit on March 20, 2003, and extended the total construction period on March 25, 2003 after consultation with the contractor on March 25, 2003.

(3) As a result, the construction is being carried out, the Plaintiff obtained approval for use of food factories on April 28, 2003, completed the registration of preservation of ownership on May 2, 2003, and began to manufacture products by operating the food factory after changing the existing location of the factory from mid-2003 to the location of the factory of this case after changing the previous location of the factory of this case from mid-2003.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff continued the construction of freezing warehouses after obtaining permission for the extension of a separate construction project on May 10, 2003, and obtained approval for use on June 17 of the same year.

(5) However, even after approval for use of food factories and freezing warehouses was granted, the finished work continued on September 2003, since the finished work had been carried out, such as a mash construction inside the building and a retaining wall construction outside the building, even after the completion of the work. Therefore, the Plaintiff, around that time, worked with a newly constructed factory without closing the previous factory and operated it together with a newly constructed factory, and completely transferred it to a newly constructed factory only after the completion of the work.

(6) On July 2003, the Plaintiff paid most of the remainder of the construction work of this case to Police Officers, and subsequently, paid the total construction cost on December 2003.

(7) The Plaintiff did not benefit from the time of supply for the instant construction project, as the time of supply is delayed later than the actual time.

D. Determination

(1) Article 9(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the time when the service is supplied shall be when the service is supplied or when 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 when the service is supplied under Article 9(2) of the Act, and in the case of ordinary supply, when the provision of the service is completed, when the service is supplied in the case of ordinary supply, 2. Completion time when the service is provided in the case of the supply, interim payment, long-term installment or on other terms, or the service is continuously supplied in the case where the unit of the supply is undivided, when each part of the consideration is received, and 3. 1 and 2 are not applicable, when the provision of

(2) In this case, the issue is when the provision of services under the contract for construction work is completed. If approval for the use of a new building has already been obtained in the construction work of a new building, the provision of services under the contract for construction work would normally be completed at that time. However, since the approval system for the use of the new building for the purpose of administrative regulation at a certain level and the actual completion of the construction work scheduled by both parties in the contract for the construction work subject to it differs in nature, the completion of the construction work is different from each other. Thus, if the construction work is continued and completed under the social norms even after the approval for the use is completed at any time thereafter, the "when the provision of services is completed" is not the time when the use is formally approved, but it should be deemed that the construction

(3) Although the approval for use of the food plant and freezing storage of this case had already been granted until June 17, 2003, and had already started to operate a new factory from May 2003, the completion date of construction work under the construction contract of this case was August 31, 2003, and even after the final approval for use of a new factory, the new factory was operated together with a new factory without relocation of the existing factory due to the completion of all construction works scheduled in the contract of this case to a new factory, and thereafter, after completion of the construction work to be completed on early September 2003, it should be viewed as around September 2003, when the new factory construction was completed, not around the date of approval for use of freezing storage, but around the date of completion of all construction works.

(4) Therefore, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to have been written differently from the fact of the time of supply for the service subject to the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition imposing the value-added tax, which was rendered without deducting the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice, is unlawful

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason.