Where a tax invoice is received in a lump on the basis of the 10,20th and last day of each month in a continuous transaction, whether the input tax amount is deducted or not.

Even if the time of supply for goods and the date of preparation and delivery of a tax invoice are somewhat inconsistent with each other’s transaction convenience, as long as actual transaction facts are verified as stated therein, it cannot be interpreted that the requisite entries in the tax invoice submitted under the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the deduction of input tax amount, are different from the facts.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Italym Co., Ltd.

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

The Defendant’s disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on March 21, 1986 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In full view of Gap evidence 1-1 through 10, evidence 4-3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 13, evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 14 (written confirmations), Eul evidence 15 (additional tax details), and Eul evidence 16 (written statement statements) without dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a company engaged in trade and typhism, manufacturing and selling chemical substances, and the non-party Maritime Co., Ltd., Ltd., a fixed trading place, purchased salt , without issuing a tax invoice at each time of purchase, and without being recorded in the tax invoice at each time of 1-1 to 10-13, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, Eul, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 16 (written confirmations), and Eul evidence 16, and the defendant did not submit a tax invoice at each time of 2-18th of 1-6th of 20 days to 1985, as stated in the above separate sheet 961-6th of the last day of 21-6th of each month.

2. Accordingly, in principle, when an entrepreneur supplies goods, the Defendant intends to set up and deliver a tax invoice at each time of supply under Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and if so, among the entrepreneurs engaged in fixed transactions, it is difficult to lower the tax invoice, Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the entrepreneur shall issue a tax invoice at the end of the following month by adding up the supply value of 100 million won to each customer, and by the end of the following month, the entrepreneur shall deliver a tax invoice at the end of the following month, or by providing that the tax invoice shall be issued within 10 days after the expiry of the pertinent period, by adding up the supply value from the first to the 15th day of each month and the 16th day of each month until the end of the pertinent period. In the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not receive a tax invoice at each time of supply for the goods, and thus, the said tax invoice is not a case where a tax invoice is delivered in accordance with the above special provisions, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is legitimate.

Therefore, since the tax invoice functions as a evidence to prove the amount of value-added tax borne by its nature, if the burden of input tax on input capital goods is proved by other entries in the tax invoice, it is thought that it would be more consistent with the ideology of the value-added tax system adopted by our legal system, rather than denying the input tax deduction from the output tax amount by focusing on the strict preparation and delivery of the correct tax invoice. In addition, Article 9(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for special cases where the tax invoice is issued prior to the arrival of the time of supply for the goods, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for special cases where the tax invoice is to be issued in a lump sum on different dates from the time of supply for the goods, and there are many cases where the time of delivery of the goods and the date of issuance of the tax invoice are different from the time of the issuance of the tax invoice, the interpretation of Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be deemed to be a case where the actual transaction is verified as provided in the main text.

3. Thus, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case based on the premise that the entries of the above tax invoice are different from the facts is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)