Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Mapo Tax Office

June 9, 2005

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2004 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-8.

(1) On August 6, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 and the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 407-7 large 503.6 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a total of KRW 4.59 billion (3,082,568,615 + building price of KRW 1,507,431,385, and value-added tax of KRW 150,743,138, Oct. 24, 2003; and completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on October 24, 2003.

on November 14, 2003, the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of real estate rental business with the real estate as the business place of the defendant and the opening date of the business as of August 6, 2003.

On January 24, 2004, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of KRW 150,743,138 (hereinafter “instant input tax amount”) on the supply value of the said building from the output tax amount when filing a final return on the second half-year value added tax for the Defendant on January 24, 2003.

x. The Defendant, on October 24, 2003, issued a tax invoice stating the tax amount of KRW 150,743,138 on the supply value of the above building by Nonparty 1, on the premise that the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice stating the tax amount of KRW 150,743,138 from November 14, 2003, the date of the application for the registration of the business (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 1, 2004, the Defendant denied the deduction and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 165,817,450, including the penalty tax of KRW 15,074,313, and the penalty tax of KRW 165,817,450, including the non-declaration

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff

The phrase "when goods are available" under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003, Jan. 1, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to the time when goods can be actually used. The plaintiff completed the procedure of transfer registration of ownership of the real estate as of Oct. 24, 2003. However, since the plaintiff changed the sales contract with non-party 1 and decided that the real estate was ordered as of Nov. 1, 2003, the time of supply shall be Nov. 1, 2003 where the real estate of this case is actually used, but the tax invoice shall be stated as Oct. 24, 2003, which means that the date of supply is stipulated as Oct. 14, 2003, which means the time of supply of the real estate as of Nov. 14, 2003.

B. Doz.

Since the Plaintiff received a tax invoice on the instant building from Nonparty 1 as of October 24, 2003, it is legitimate to deny the said tax deduction because it did not constitute an input tax amount within 20 days retroactively from the date of application for business registration.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 5-2, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 12-2, 2, 13, 14-1, 15, 17, 18-1, 2, 3, 19, 20, 6, 24-1, 25-1, 26-1 through 6, 25-2, 1, 26-1, 26-2, 2, 3-2, 3-4, 3-1, 4-2, 3-2, and 4-1, 3-2, and 4-1, 2-2, 3-2, and 4-2 of the witness testimony respectively.

(1) On August 6, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 for the instant real estate, and again on September 8, 2003, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 350 million for bank loans in the name of Nonparty 1, the initial purchaser of the instant real estate on the outstanding payment date, and subsequently partially revised the initial contract by taking the name of the instant real estate as of November 1, 2003.

D. As of October 24, 2003, the Plaintiff paid the remainder, etc. of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1, and completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, and entered into a lease agreement with the tenants of the instant real estate on the same day after receiving an order from Nonparty 1 on November 1, 2003, respectively.

On the other hand, Nonparty 1 received any balance from the Plaintiff on October 24, 2003, and delivered a tax invoice stating 150,743,138 won, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration number (Evidence 1-4) to the Plaintiff, along with the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership. Thereafter, in filing the final return of value-added tax for the real estate rental business he had operated, on October 24, 2003, the transaction period was from July 1, 2003 to October 24, 2003; and in filing the final return of value-added tax for the second period from the output tax amount, KRW 150,743,138 of the output tax amount on the building of this case as the resident registration number issuance amount.

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

D. Determination

(1) Time of supply of the real estate

Article 9 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if the transfer of goods is not required, the time when the goods are made available," and this provision refers to the time when the goods are made available in reality, so if the goods supplied are real estate, the time when the goods are ordered to be ordered to be ordered (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1745 delivered on March 28, 1989). As recognized earlier in this case, the plaintiff agreed on November 1, 2003, after the registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate of this case was completed by Nonparty 1 and it was ordered on the same day, the time of supply shall be November 1, 2003.

Article 9(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 17(2)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

㈎ 그런데 부가가치세법 제9조 는 제1항 에서 재화의 원칙적인 공급시기에 대하여 재화의 이동이 필요한 경우와 필요하지 아니한 경우로 구분하여 규정하는 한편, 제3항 에서 “사업자가 제9조 제1항 … 에서 규정하는 시기가 도래하기 전에 제16조 의 규정에 의한 세금계산서 또는 제32조 의 규정에 의한 영수증을 교부하는 경우에는 그 교부하는 때를 당해 재화 …의 공급시기로 본다.”라고 규정하여 재화의 공급시기에 관한 특례규정을 두고 있는바, 이러한 특례규정은 세금계산서라는 것이 원래 재화의 공급이 먼저 있을 것을 전제로 하여 발행ㆍ교부되는 것으로서 그 공급이 없음에도 불구하고 세금계산서가 교부되었다고 하여 그 때를 공급시기로 보는 것은 실제와 어긋나는 면이 있으므로 그 적용범위는 어디까지나 제도의 취지를 실현하는데 필요한 범위 내로 한정하여야 한다 할 것이고, 이러한 관점에서 보면 장래 재화의 공급이 있을 것을 예상하여 미리 세금계산서를 발부한 경우에는 과세기간의 확정이라는 범위 내에서 재화를 실제 공급한 시점이 거래시기가 아니라 그 이전의 세금계산서 발부시점을 거래시기로 본다는데 위 특례규정의 취지가 있는 것으로 풀이되는 만큼, 어떤 사정에 의하여 사후에 재화의 공급이 없게 되었음에도 불구하고 단지 세금계산서가 발행ㆍ교부되었다는 사실만으로 재화의 공급이 있었다고 본다거나, 과세기간 확정의 범위를 넘어 모든 면에서 언제나 세금계산서발부시기를 재화의 공급시기로 본다는 뜻은 아니라 할 것이다.

㈏ 한편, 부가가치세법 제17조 제2항 제5호 는 사업자등록의 성실이행을 확보하기 위하여 사업자등록 전의 매입세액을 공제대상에서 제외하면서도(원래 사업자등록하기 전에는 사업자등록번호가 없고 또한 사업자등록번호는 세금계산서상의 필요적 기재사항이므로 이것이 기재되지 않는 세금계산서상의 매입세액은 당연히 공제대상에서 제외되는 것이기도 하다) 그 단서와 그에 따른 부가가치세법시행령 제60조 제9항 은 그에 대한 예외를 인정하여 사업자등록신청일로부터 역산하여 20일 이내의 매입세액은 이를 공제할 수 있도록 규정하고 있는데, 이는 부가가치세법 제5조 제1항 에서 사업자등록기간을 사업개시일로부터 20일로 정하고 있는 것을 염두에 둔 것이라 할 수 있다.

㈐ 그런데 여기서 공제대상이 되는 등록 전 매입세액인지 여부를 판단함에 있어서는 계약시점이나 대금지급시점이 아니라 부가가치세법 제9조 제1항 (용역의 경우에는 제2항 )에서 규정하는 공급시기가 기준이 된다 할 것이나, 앞서 본 바와 같은 부가가치세법 제9조 제3항 의 규정은 공급시기에 관한 예외적인 특례규정으로서 과세기간의 확정을 위한 한정된 범위 내에서 적용되는 것으로 해석하여야 하는 점과 부가가치세법 제17조 제2항 제5호 단서 및 부가가치세법시행령 제60조 제9항 에서 사업자등록신청일로부터 역산하여 20일 이내의 매입세액을 공제대상으로 규정한 것은 사업자등록에 관한 20일의 유예기간을 실질적으로 보장하려고 한 것이어서 여기서의 매입세액은 실제 매입의 거래가 이루어진 시기에 따라 판정하여야 할 것인 점에 비추어 보면, 세금계산서의 발부시점과 같은 과세기간에 속하는 경우에는 부가가치세법 제9조 제3항 은 여기에 적용될 여지가 없다고 봄이 옳다고 할 것이다. 만약 이렇게 해석하지 않는다면 실제의 공급시기 보다 의제된 공급시기가 등록신청일로부터 역산하여 20일 이전인 경우에는 단지 세금계산서가 먼저 발행ㆍ교부되었다는 사유만으로 실제로는 사업자등록의 유예기간 내에 공급받은 것임에도 불구하고 매입세액을 공제받지 못하는 결과가 되어 유예기간 설정의 취지가 반감되기 때문이다.

【Finality

On the premise of this case, the time of supply for the real estate of this case shall be November 1, 2003, where the time of supply for the real estate of this case is stipulated to be ordered to be ordered to be registered, and it is apparent from November 14, 2003, where the Plaintiff calculated the real estate of this case from November 14, 2003, to be within 20 days, and thus, the input tax amount of this case shall be deducted from the output tax amount pursuant to Article 17(2)5 proviso of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(9) of the Enforcement Decree

3. Conclusion

If so, the disposition of this case is unlawful on different premise, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Cho Jae-young (Presiding Judge)