Tax invoices issued after a taxable object shall not be included in the input tax deduction;

The import tax invoice issued after the taxable period as the actual importer confirms as the plaintiff by customs investigation is not subject to input tax deduction.

Article 35 (Import Tax Invoice)

2015Guhap54261 Claim for refund of value-added tax

AAAAAAAA corporation

Korea

July 17, 2015

August 28, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant added value added tax to the Plaintiff, 290,120,000 won, such as the attached list of value added tax, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a clothing manufacturing and wholesale retail company, and the head of BB conducted a customs investigation with respect to the Plaintiff on September 2013, as a result of the Plaintiff’s customs investigation, deemed that the Plaintiff was directly engaged in all customs duties with respect to the case imported for male consumption in the name ofCC Co., Ltd. and DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Co., Ltd.”), and determined the importer as the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff revoked the import tax invoice issued to the firstCC Co., Ltd. and issued the import tax invoice, such as the entry in the separate sheet of value added tax (hereinafter “the import tax invoice of this case”).

B. Meanwhile, on December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that: (a) the head of ○○ Tax Office filed a request for correction with the Tax Tribunal on July 11, 2011, and from February 2011 to January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication on the following grounds: (b) the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication on the tax base and tax amount for refund equivalent to the above input tax amount (total amount of KRW 290,120,870) with respect to the taxable period of value added tax (total amount of KRW 2,90,120) with respect to the import tax invoice in the instant case; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal on December 16, 2014; and (d) the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the disposition of revocation of the Plaintiff’s request for refund on July 25, 2015 (Seoul Administrative Court).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The import tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice issued by the head of BB to the Plaintiff who is a true importer after changing the import entity. The Plaintiff was not issued a tax invoice as to the import tax invoice of this case in the first taxable period, and thus, was not deducted. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the value that was not deducted to the

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Legal principles and relevant statutes

Even if a tax invoice is prepared after the expiration of a taxable period, since part of the requisite entry items under the main sentence of Article 39 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount in such case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004); Articles 16 (1) and (5) and 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 56 and 60 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply). If an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, the entrepreneur shall issue the input tax amount, collectively, to the person who supplied the goods or services.

2) Whether the import tax invoice of this case constitutes those eligible for input tax deduction

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, and Eul evidence No. 1-8, it is recognized that the head of BB changed the importer of the import tax invoice from February 7, 2013 to the plaintiff during which the taxable period of value-added tax had already lapsed on Nov. 7, 2013 as a result of customs investigation conducted by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and issued the import tax invoice of this case in the same manner as the list of the value-added tax in the attached Table. The import tax invoice of this case does not constitute a tax invoice issued within each taxable period to which the time of receipt of the goods belongs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was issued an import tax invoice in the name of the plaintiff with respect to goods imported by the plaintiff in each of the following taxable periods

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot deduct the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the import tax invoice of this case from the output tax amount of each relevant taxable period, and the plaintiff's assertion seeking a refund of value-added tax on other premise is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.