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

Head of Mapo Tax Office

April 13, 2006

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap3486 decided June 30, 2005

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

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

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the court’s correction of “O. 24, 203.10” of the 3th judgment of the court of first instance as “O. 24, 2003.10,” and the Defendant’s addition of the following judgments as to the newly asserted matters by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part】

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts, as alleged by the plaintiff, that if the plaintiff was prepared and delivered the above tax invoice from the non-party on November 14, 2003, which was after October 24, 2003 when the non-party reported the closure of his business, the above tax invoice is prepared and delivered in the status of the non-party's registration, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate tax invoice. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be entitled to deduction of the input tax amount with it.

B. Determination

(1) The purpose of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to enable the tax authorities to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and to secure the taxation data, and this constitutes a simple business fact-finding report (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du6903, Dec. 22, 2000). If the preparation date of the tax invoice is different from the actual transaction date, and the transaction is confirmed as stated in the tax invoice, the input tax amount on the transaction should be deducted, but it is limited to the case where the taxable period to which the date of preparation of the tax invoice belongs belongs belongs and the taxable period to which the actual transaction date belongs (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 95Nu634, Aug. 11, 1995, etc.).

(2) Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal principles, Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 17, 24, 29-1 and 2-1 and 3-2, each of which is based on these legal principles, the plaintiff should be deemed as the time of supply for the real estate of this case after being ordered to the non-party by the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party, and newly concluded the lease contract with the lessee on Nov. 1, 2003. The non-party reported the closure of business on Oct. 24, 2003, which had completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case, the non-party reported to the authorities on Oct. 31, 2003 as belonging to the plaintiff on Oct. 31, 203, it appears that the tax return was made on Oct. 14, 2003, and the non-party's sales contract was made on Oct. 14, 2003.

(3) Thus, even if the non-party prepared and delivered the above tax invoice which was written by the non-party on October 14, 2003, which was after October 24, 2003 when the plaintiff reported the closure of business, around November 24, 2003, the non-party's date of preparation was clearly the same transaction as that stated in the above tax invoice prior to the non-party's actual cessation of business (the collection of value-added tax was normally performed). Since the tax period to which the tax payer belongs the date of preparation and delivery of the above tax invoice and the tax period to which the actual transaction date belongs, it shall be deemed that the input tax amount under the above tax invoice can be deducted from the output tax amount. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Judge) Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)