logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 1983. 12. 8. 선고 82구207 판결
[부가가치세부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Plaintiff

Tae-gu Office Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 10, 1983

Text

The imposition of value-added tax on August 17, 1981 by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 17, 1981 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

The Defendant imposed value-added tax (additional tax) on the Plaintiff on August 17, 1981 on the attached list (However, Article 5 of the same entry in the attached list) is without dispute between the parties, and considering the entries in Gap evidence 1-6, Gap evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 1-10, and witness dispatch testimony, the Plaintiff is a corporation whose main business is manufacturing and selling amnesty and direct materials, and the Defendant prepared and attached a copy of the tax invoice at issue in this case to obtain export financing by local letter of credit, and submitted a copy of the tax invoice at issue in this case to the Plaintiff, and submitted it to the Plaintiff for the taxable period (from January 1, 1978 to February 4, 1980), which belongs to the date of submission, and the amount of additional tax for the taxable period (from January 1, 1988 to the amount of value-added tax) under Article 20 of the Value-Added Tax Act, or delayed submission of the above tax invoice under Article 20 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare a copy of the tax invoice, which is a document attached to the financial procedure, in order to obtain export financing based on the local letter of credit prior to the delivery of the goods, and submit it to the financial institution for financing, and then issue and deliver the original copy of the tax invoice to the defendant at the time of delivery of the goods, and make a voluntary declaration within the prescribed period. Thus, it shall be deemed that the time of supply of the goods is the time of supply of the goods. If a tax invoice is issued to the defendant under Article 9 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the time of delivery shall be deemed as the time of supply of the goods, and the tax invoice is deemed as the time of submission of the tax invoice within the prescribed period or delayed submission, and the defendant's litigation performer claims that the tax invoice of this case is illegal, because the plaintiff submitted a copy of the tax invoice to the financial institution and the other party's certificate of receipt of the goods, and thus the transaction is completed at that time, the above copy is identical to the certificate of delivery of the goods or its contents.

However, according to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, value-added tax is imposed on the transaction of supplying goods or services (Article 1 of the same Act). The actual time of such transaction shall be the time when the goods or services are supplied (Article 9(1) and (2), Articles 21 and 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), an entrepreneur shall prepare and deliver a tax invoice to the person who is supplied at each time of the transaction (Article 16 of the same Act), and submit it to the Government at the time of scheduled and final return for the taxable period (Article 20 of the same Act), and Article 9(3) of the same Act provides that the tax invoice shall be used as calculated data for calculating the amount of value-added tax (Article 17 of the same Act). Since Article 9(1) of the same Act provides that if a copy of the tax invoice is prepared and delivered to the witness at each time after the delivery of the goods or services, it shall be deemed that the delivery of the goods or services is not possible for the other party to the transaction to receive the tax invoice.

Therefore, since the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is illegal, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 8, 1983

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Form Omission (Tax Disposition List, Invoice)]

arrow