(a) The input tax invoice containing the name and registration number of the businessman by mistake; and

(b) Approval of the details of transactions by a tax invoice erroneously entered without undergoing the modified issuance procedure;

A. Since the Plaintiff and the Nonparty continued to engage in a trade under the name of the Nonparty’s business operator while engaging in the business, and after completing the business registration renewal procedure, they traded with the supplier before receiving the business registration certificate, the recipient and the business registration number are stated as the Nonparty, and the business place and telephone number are all indicated as the Plaintiff, and if it is easily known that the Plaintiff is the actual trader due to such stated matters, the input tax deduction should be recognized.

B. Since it is clear that the tax invoice of error in the matters to be entered under Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is a tax invoice that did not go through the procedure for the amendment and delivery under Article 59 of the same Decree, the details of transactions verified by the items to be entered in the account can be acknowledged as the plaintiff, even if the registration number of the tax invoice submitted by the plaintiff was erroneously stated,

(a) Articles 17 and 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 59 and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of

Plaintiff

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu624 delivered on January 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur to the Government shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. Although there are no requisite entry items or part of the input tax amount under the main sentence of paragraph (2) 1 of the same Article, or the input tax amount of a tax invoice different from the facts is not deducted from the output tax amount, the proviso of the same Article and Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even in cases where some of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice delivered under Article 16(1) of the Act are erroneously entered, if the facts are confirmed by deeming the necessary entry items or discretionary entry items of the relevant tax invoice as those of the pertinent tax invoice and the facts are not included in the tax invoice different from the facts. Therefore, since the court below's decision that the Plaintiff submitted the tax invoice which did not recognize the input tax amount, the above supplier and the Nonparty did not recognize the Plaintiff's name and registration number as the non-party's business operator's name and the non-party's business registration number.

According to Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act, the argument that even if the registration number of the tax invoice submitted by the plaintiff is written by mistake as to the approval of the court below, it cannot be acknowledged as the plaintiff unless the procedure for issuing a revised tax invoice is followed. However, Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that even in cases where part of the necessary entries of the tax invoice are written by mistake, if the facts of transactions are confirmed in view of the necessary entry or discretionary entry, such contents shall not be included in the tax invoice different from the fact, and it is clear that it is a tax invoice without going through the procedure for correction, such as the theory of correction, because it is contrary to the above provision of Article 17 (2) 1 of the Act.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)