The meaning of "when goods are made available" as provided in Article 9 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act; or if it is confirmed that a transaction is made even if the date of preparation of the tax invoice does not coincide with the actual transaction date due to an error, whether the relevant input tax amount should be deducted

A. Article 9(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the time when the goods can be used actually refers to the time when the goods can be used actually. Thus, in case where the goods supplied are real estate, in principle, the time when the goods are ordered to be ordered, but if, in concluding a sales contract, a special agreement is made at any time after the time of use of the real estate, the time when the contract is made should be the time when the goods can be used actually.

B. After the entrepreneur’s business registration, there was an actual transaction, such as the entries of the tax invoice that he received, but if the date of preparation of the tax invoice was entered as the date of transfer of business registration due to mistake, even if a tax invoice that is somewhat inconsistent with the time of transaction under Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act was prepared, the input tax amount should be deducted pursuant to the proviso of Article 17(2)1 of the same Act and Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

(a) Article 9 (1) 2 (b) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu411 delivered on December 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu75 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu398 delivered on May 12, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu956 delivered on January 19, 198, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu964 delivered on February 9, 198, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu376 delivered on March 28, 198 (Dong)

International Steel Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 87Gu62 delivered on December 30, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

1. According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff filed an application for business registration on June 12, 1985 and received the registration certificate on June 15 of the same year, and on June 1 of the same year, the plaintiff purchased land, factory buildings and machinery and appliances from the non-party to use them for its business purpose on June 12 and June 30 of the same year, and the intermediate payment and remainder payment shall be paid respectively on June 12 of the same year and until June 7 of the same year, and the surrender of the object shall be made on June 7 of the same year, and the use of the object shall be made after the payment of intermediate payment by the plaintiff and agreed to allow the plaintiff to use it after the payment of intermediate payment, and received the tax invoice for the factory buildings, etc. subject to value-added tax (Evidence 12-1) on the date on which the tax invoice for the factory buildings, etc. subject to value-added tax was issued, and the plaintiff was found to have been issued the same date as the date of conclusion of the sales contract, and there was no error in finding or omission.

In addition, according to Article 9 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, in a case where the transfer of goods is not required for the time when the goods are supplied, the time when the goods are available, which means the time when the goods are available for the actual use of the goods, and in the case of this case, the time when the goods being supplied, in principle, are made available at the time when the goods are made available for the actual use of the goods when they are ordered to be ordered to be ordered. However, in the case of a contract to enter into a sales contract, if a special contract was entered into after a certain time is ordered to specify the time of use of the goods, the time when the agreed time becomes available for the actual use of the goods. Accordingly, the court below's decision on June 12, 1985 that the factory building and all machinery and appliances of this case can be used for the plaintiff pursuant to a special contract with the non-party, is just and there is no error of law as a misapprehension of legal principles, such as a theory of lawsuit.

2. According to the proviso of Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, even in cases where part of the requisite entries of the tax invoice delivered under Article 16(1) of the said Act are erroneously entered, if the fact of transaction is confirmed in view of the requisite entry of the said tax invoice or voluntary entry, the content thereof under Article 17(2)1 of the said Act shall not be included in the case of a tax invoice different from the fact.

In this case, it is confirmed that there was an actual transaction, such as the contents of the tax invoice, after the plaintiff's business registration, but since the date of preparation of the tax invoice was entered as the date of transfer of business registration by mistake, even if a tax invoice is prepared which does not coincide with the time of transaction under Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the input tax amount should be deducted, and the judgment below to the same effect is legitimate,

In addition, Article 9(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act concerning the time of supply for goods is not appropriate in this case as a provision for the case where the tax invoice is delivered prior to the time of supply for the goods. Any other issue is groundless.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)