(a) The case holding that even if the transfer of registration was made earlier than the balance payment date in purchasing a building used for a leased and used, a tax invoice prepared on the balance payment date shall not be deemed to be a false tax invoice;

B. Whether the date on which a tax invoice is prepared is somewhat different from the date of de facto transaction, or whether the taxable period to which it belongs is deducted as input tax (affirmative)

(a) The case holding that a tax invoice prepared on the balance payment date shall not be deemed to be a tax invoice different from the fact, on the grounds that, even if the transfer of registration was done earlier than the balance payment date due to the seller's circumstances, the right to use and profit from the relevant building should be deemed to occur when the actual balance is paid, in purchasing the building which was leased and used by the real estate

B. Unless the taxable period to which the date of preparing a tax invoice belongs is different from the taxable period to which the date of actual transaction belongs, even if a tax invoice is prepared which is somewhat inconsistent with the date of actual transaction, if the transaction is verified by the entries of the tax invoice, the input tax amount entered in the tax

(a)Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 9(1)2 of the Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu57 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1257) 89Nu7528 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 822) 90Nu933 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1545)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu12054 delivered on June 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiffs, who carry on real estate rental business on January 21, 198, purchased 426.1 square meters for 19,700,000 won and 80,000 won for each of the above 30-year fixed assets after 198,000 won for the remaining 19,000 won for the reason that the above 30-year fixed assets were purchased from the seller's first of all after 198,000,000 won and 19,700,000 won and 19,000,000 won for the remaining 90,000 won for the remaining 9,000 won for the supply of goods and 30,000 won for each of the above 19,000,000 won for the remaining 9,000 won for the reason that the above 30-year fixed assets were not registered under the name of the Korea Stock Companies.

In addition, the judgment below to the same effect is justified, inasmuch as the taxable period to which the date of preparing a tax invoice belongs is different from the taxable period to which the date of actual transaction belongs, even if a tax invoice is prepared which is somewhat inconsistent with the date of actual transaction, if the transaction is confirmed by the entries of the tax invoice, the input tax amount entered in the tax invoice shall be deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7528 delivered on February 27,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the cost of appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)