propriety of supplying goods subject to the zero-rate tax rate and of refunding the tax from the value of supply for the following taxable year

The supply of goods subject to the zero-rate tax rate, which is supplied for the year 1980, has been issued with a false tax invoice as if the taxable period were supplied for other 1981, and using it, it is improper to refund the tax amount by applying the zero-rate tax rate in the tax year 1981.

Articles 9 and 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu328 Delivered on December 11, 1984

Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Public Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu53 delivered on December 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff supplied gold 254,970,518 won to the non-party company, etc. for export on December 31, 1980 to the non-party company, but the local letter of credit for the above goods was not issued before the supply of the above goods due to the company's circumstances, the court below determined that the above transaction portion should not be subject to the zero-rate tax, and the corresponding value-added tax is paid, and the first preliminary return of the value-added tax ( April 25, 1981) was made at the time of the first return of the value-added tax ( April 25, 1981) in 1981, each of the above goods supplied to the above company, etc. in the previous year after receiving a new tax invoice, which entered the new supply date, and filed a return of the relevant value-added tax amount with the zero-rate tax rate applied to the goods supplied in the year 1980, and then the plaintiff was entitled to the zero-rate tax rate in the pertinent taxable period.

However, the court below's determination that the issue of the revised tax invoice can be issued only for the taxable period to which the time of supply for the transaction in question belongs, and that the plaintiff received the revised tax invoice after the expiration of the taxable period is unreasonable, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amended tax invoice in the judgment of the court below, on the premise that the time of supply for the goods supplied in the year 1980 is unreasonable. However, as if the plaintiff was supplied in January 1, 1981, the time of supply for the goods supplied in the year 1980, a false tax invoice was newly issued and the transaction subject to zero tax rate was reported and thus, it is improper to receive the input tax amount from the supply price for the taxable year

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 on the bench.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)