[부가가치세부과처분취소][하집1992(1),576]
Whether Article 22 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act applies to an entrepreneur who delivers a cash register to a general entrepreneur who installs a cash register and supplies goods (negative)
In case where a cash register is installed by the designation of the head of the competent tax office and an invoice is delivered to the person who is supplied with the goods, regardless of whether the person is a general businessman, it shall be deemed that the simplified tax invoice under Article 16 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act is issued by the delivery of the invoice, and there is no obligation to deliver the tax invoice under Article 16 (1). Thus, Article 22 (2) 1 of the same Act imposing the non-issuance of the tax invoice and the non-issuance of the additional tax shall not apply only to the business operator who is obligated to issue the tax invoice under Article
Articles 16, 22, 32 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 55 and 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
Man-Mad Co., Ltd.
Head of the Tax Office;
1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 74,579,780 against the Plaintiff on February 16, 1990 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
The facts of Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence 7,8, Gap evidence 1 and 2-3, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7-7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 4, Gap evidence 10, 11-2, Eul evidence 10, 10, 11-2, and Eul evidence 17-1 of Jongno-gu 39-1 of Jongno-gu, Seoul 39-1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul's non-indicted 1-7, Eul's non-indicted 1-7, Eul's non-indicted 1-7, Eul's non-indicted 1-7, 1989-2, defendant's non-indicted 27, 3888
The plaintiff argues that the tax disposition of this case by the defendant, based on the application of Article 22 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, is unlawful in the case where the plaintiff, who installed a cash register and received the confirmation of installation, supplies goods or services, is not obligated to deliver tax invoices under Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and instead, is obligated to deliver tax invoices under Article 32 (1) of the same Act, and the issuance of tax invoices under Article 16 (2) of the same Act shall be deemed to be the issuance of tax invoices among those under Article 16 (2) of the same Act.
According to Article 22 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, if an entrepreneur fails to issue tax invoices under Article 16 (1) of the Act, or if the entrepreneur fails to submit tax invoices to the Government under Article 20 (1) and (2) of the Act, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount. According to Article 16 (1) of the same Act, if an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, tax invoices under Article 9 shall be delivered to the supplier as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. On the other hand, according to Article 16 (2) of the same Act, an invoice shall be issued to the entrepreneur who has received the tax invoices under Article 16 (1) 7 of the same Act, and such invoice shall be issued to the Plaintiff and the entrepreneur who has received the tax invoices under Article 55 (1) 7 of the same Act, and such invoice shall be deemed to have been issued to the entrepreneur who mainly supplies goods or services, other than the entrepreneur under Article 16 (2) of the same Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above taxation is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.
Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)