The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice that contains part of the requisite entries differently from the facts, and thus the instant disposition is lawful.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff and a corporation affiliated with A on November 24, 2009 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

“The instant construction project” was concluded, and A Co., Ltd. entered into a contract on July 15, 201.

The construction of the case was completed.

B. The Plaintiff’s value of supply from A, 1,872,309,090 won, value-added tax

Union of a tax invoice dated 31, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case") of KRW 187,230,910

On January 27, 2014, following the addition, which deducts the value-added tax amount as an input tax amount on January 27, 2013.

The final return of value-added tax was filed.

C. The Defendant confirmed the field of value-added tax, and completed the instant construction on July 15, 201.

Therefore, the time of supply for the service is determined as July 15, 201, and February 17, 2014.

The above value-added tax amount shall be the input tax amount on the ground that it constitutes a false tax invoice.

Non-deduction was made.

D. Accordingly, on September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff added value-added tax to the Defendant on February 2011.

claim that the tax amount should be deducted as the input tax amount of the tax, and that the tax amount should be refunded.

However, the defendant rejected the claim on November 17, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

(c).

E. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on December 7, 2016.

However, the Director of the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on April 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

When the instant construction is completed on July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff Company A

The duty to pay value-added tax was incurred in the second half of 2011, and the plaintiff was added to the second half of 2011.

If the final return is filed, the amount of value-added tax would be deducted as the input tax amount, but the other

The defendant's disposition of this case in the No. 1 shall be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201); hereinafter the same shall apply.

In the interpretation of the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act ("the former Value-Added Tax Act").

"The date on which a part of the requisite entry of the tax invoice is written is written differently from the fact", and "the date on which the tax invoice is actually prepared is different from the fact of transaction", and such a case shall mean

The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012)

under section 60(2)(2)(2), the fact of transaction is confirmed as recorded in the remainder of the tax invoice.

If so, the input tax amount for the said fact of transaction should be deducted, but this is only tax calculation.

the tax period to which the date of actual production belongs and the tax period to which the date of actual transaction belongs;

"In such a case, the date of preparation of the tax invoice shall be stated in the actual date of preparation, but in fact it shall not be entered retroactively to any time of transaction, or any time of transaction, if any).

The reason is that the tax invoice is a document evidencing the determination of value-added tax.

It is for securing the truth of the documentary evidence to issue and deliver it at the time of transaction.

Although it is also the system of Value-Added Tax Act that adopts the predevelopment tax credit law.

In addition to value-added tax by exposing transaction between the parties, the tax invoice system as well as income.

It has the function of mutual verification between taxpayers that facilitate the dissemination of tax and corporate tax;

Due to the characteristics of value-added tax for which calculation and trade name verification are conducted for each taxable period, the above

In order to function properly as a mutual verification function, the preparation and issuance of a tax invoice shall be the time of the transaction.

because it is essential to normally take place within the taxable period to which he/she belongs;

the time of supply, the tax invoice prepared after the expiration of the period of time shall be drawn retroactively to the time of supply.

Even if they were sexually stated, since some of the provisions of Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act constitutes a tax invoice stating differently from the facts, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the sales tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004).

see Supreme Court Decision 200Do4148 delivered on May 2

2) In light of the above legal principles, the time of the transaction (supply) of the instant construction project

The construction of this case was completed on July 15, 201, and the taxable period to which the said time belongs is two years in 201.

In addition, the taxable period to which December 31, 2013 belongs, which is the date of the actual preparation of the instant tax invoice, shall be 2 December 2013.

As such, the tax invoice of this case is not identical to that of the former Value-Added Tax Act

The tax invoice in which part of the requisite entry prescribed in the main sentence of subparagraph 2 of this paragraph is entered differently from the fact

Thus, in this case, the input tax amount should not be deducted from the output tax amount.

Therefore, the disposition of this case by the defendant on the same premise is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

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

this decision is rendered.