Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act

The purport of Article 60 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act is that the tax invoice is a document evidencing the fact of transactions to determine value-added tax and that the requisite entries in the tax invoice are to guarantee the truth of transactions. Therefore, even if some of the entries are inconsistent with the facts, if the facts of transactions are confirmed due to the entries of the tax invoice, it shall not be paid an additional tax as provided in Article 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu573 Decided September 8, 1987

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu189 delivered on October 22, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where part of the requisite entries in the tax invoice issued under Article 16 (1) of the Act are different from the facts, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply in the corporation shall be paid as an additional tax. However, Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that where some of the requisite entries in the tax invoice are erroneously entered, the relevant tax invoice shall be deemed to be the requisite entry or discretionary entry, and where the transaction is confirmed in the light of the facts, the contents of Article 22 (2) 2 of the Act shall not be included in the actual tax invoice. The purport of the above provision is to ensure the truth of the fact of the fact of the transaction, which is a document evidencing the fact of the transaction in order to determine the value-added tax amount, so even if some of the entries are inconsistent with the facts, the above additional tax shall not be paid if the transaction is confirmed by the entry of the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu573, Sept. 8, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition imposing additional tax on the plaintiff is unlawful, since the plaintiff's delivery of the tax invoice is inevitable because it is merely a change in the trade name entered as a purchaser under the sales contract at the time of original adjudication, and that the plaintiff and the plaintiff transferred or acquired the machinery and inventory assets equivalent to the supply price under the tax invoice at the time of original adjudication, and due to the unique nature of the sales contract, the plaintiff could not determine the accurate purchase price of the goods at the time of delivery of the above machinery and inventory assets to the above Samsoccon Co., Ltd., and therefore, the tax invoice at the time of delivery cannot be determined, and since the issuance of the tax invoice at the time of the subsequent decision became final and conclusive, since the tax invoice at issue was deferred and the purchase price becomes final and conclusive after the date of the preparation of the tax invoice at issue is different from the actual transaction date, it is reasonable to do so, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of Articles 16 (1) and 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the revised tax invoice at the time of this case's.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)