The argument of the claim is justified in the terms of an interim payment agreement.

Even if there are circumstances, such as delay in the completion of factory construction, the transaction period is at least six months from the overall form of transaction, and it is an interim payment condition divided at least three times.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s non-deduction disposition of KRW 38,181,800 of the input tax amount among the value-added tax for the first quarter of August 1, 2006 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2006 is revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 4.

A. On January 10, 2006, from January 27, 2006 to January 27, 2006, the Plaintiff received respectively a tax invoice of KRW 600,000,000 from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○ Machinery Industry”) and applied for a refund of KRW 117,13,377 (the input tax amount 117,13,377) (the output tax amount - the output tax amount - the output tax amount - the output tax amount - the output tax amount - 006 on February 10, 2006 to the Defendant on April 25, 2006.

B. On August 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the Plaintiff an input tax amount of KRW 684,804,804 for the first period of one year of 2006 without deducting the input tax amount on the portion of KRW 981,818,818,181 ( + KRW 600,000 + KRW 381,818,1818,181) under Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, without deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 23, 2006, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. filed an objection against the Plaintiff, and on November 23, 2006, the director of the regional tax office decided to dismiss the remainder of the claim after deducting the input tax amount of KRW 60,00,000 from the input tax amount of KRW 60,00.

D. After that, the Defendant appropriated the refund of input tax amount pursuant to the decision of the above sub-paragraph (c) on December 1, 2006 for the Plaintiff's delinquent national taxes.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice was issued on June 16, 2004 between the Plaintiff and the instant tax invoice and the instant tax invoice and the Plaintiff’s ○○○○ Machinery Industry (hereinafter “instant mechanical supply contract”) is a “conditional condition of inspection” under Article 21(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the instant tax invoice is deemed as the time of supply for goods on March 10, 2006, which is the date of machinery inspection, as the date of the instant tax invoice’s supply. As such, the instant tax invoice is issued within the pertinent tax period based on the time of supply, and thus, the entire supply price is subject to the input tax deduction. However, the instant disposition that deducts the input tax amount under this part by deeming that the supply price of the instant tax invoice is different from the fact of the time of supply is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The instant mechanical supply contract is an interim payment condition transaction under Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. The instant mechanical supply contract is deemed to be the time of supply for goods on November 26, 2004, where the final payment was made in the sum of KRW 420,000,000, and as such, the instant tax invoice’s supply price of KRW 420,000,000, out of the supply price of the instant tax invoice, is not issued within the pertinent taxable period according to the time of supply, and thus, the instant disposition that deducts the input tax amount is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 7-1 through 6, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, and Eul evidence 13, and the testimony of Lee ○○'s witness against this point is not believed.

(1) On June 16, 2004, the Plaintiff, while constructing a new factory, concluded the instant mechanical supply contract with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 200,000,000 as the contract deposit per day after the completion of construction work in 2005 while receiving KRW 457,00,000 from the CNC mining shock and other 22 kinds of machinery (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) from the CNC mining industry, and receiving KRW 457,00,000 as the contract deposit, and as the intermediate payment, KRW 200,000 as the intermediate payment, and the remainder of KRW 57,00,00 as the remainder after the completion of construction work in 205. The supply and inspection of the content of the contract are as follows.

Article 3 (Time of Supply) The ○○○ Machinery Industry shall deliver the goods to the Plaintiff until after completion of 2005, and the Plaintiff shall accept them: Provided, That the contract shall be automatically terminated if the Plaintiff delays the supply of machinery for 15 days.

Article 4 (Place of Delivery) The place of delivery of goods under a contract shall be the arrival of a factory designated by the plaintiff.

Article 5 (Quality Guarantee) The quality guarantee period for the ○○ Machinery Industry shall be twenty-four months.

Article 6 (Period of Examination) The period of examination of the Plaintiff shall be within three days from the date of delivery of the goods.

Article 7 (Other Matters)

1. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with the terms and conditions for the payment of the price under Article 2, the Hyundai Wood Machinery Industry may freely enter and remove any of the places where the said goods exist in order to verify or recover the goods under Article 1, without the consent of the Plaintiff.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 200,000,000 won on June 16, 2004 as the instant mechanical price in the ○○○○ Machinery Industry, and KRW 100,000,000 on June 28, 2004, and KRW 29,100,000 on November 26, 200 on the same month, and KRW 20,000,000 on November 26, 2006, and KRW 27,000 on January 27, 200,000 on April 12, 200, respectively.

(3) The new construction work of a factory is delayed due to the financing shortage, and the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the new factory only on November 17, 2005.

(4) Before the delivery of the instant machine to the above factory, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the storage charges for the storage of the warehouse were borne by the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Industries from July 2004 to July 2005, and the Plaintiff was charged with the storage charges thereafter.

(5) On February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of this case from the ○○○ Machinery Industry, and on March 10, 2006, the date when the inspection and confirmation of the instant machinery was completed.

D. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the instant mechanical supply contract constitutes a “conditional transaction”.

"Conditional transaction to which Article 21 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act applies" refers to a conditional sale under which the whole supply of goods is deemed not realized if it does not pass an inspection under a contract for supply of goods, i.e., a buyer's conditional sale under the condition of suspension of inspection. The following circumstances revealed by the above (c). In other words, the instant mechanical supply contract includes only the inspection period within 3 days from the date of delivery, and does not include the purport that the entire supply of goods is a condition of inspection not realized if it does not pass an inspection, and it is difficult to regard the above contract as a tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally tally, which is delivered to the Plaintiff.

(2) Next, we examine whether the instant mechanical supply contract constitutes an intermediate payment condition transaction.

Article 21 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the interim payment condition transaction" shall be paid in installments other than the down payment. Article 9 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the transaction subject to interim payment" is "the case where the payment of the price other than the down payment is made before the goods are delivered or the goods are made available in installments and the period from the date when the payment of the down payment is made to the date when the balance is paid is not less than 6 months from the date when the down payment is made. According to the above (c) facts, the instant mechanical supply contract constitutes "the interim payment condition transaction", since the period from the date when the machinery is delivered to the date when the down payment is made to the date when the balance is paid

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances above, the instant mechanical supply contract constitutes an interim payment condition transaction. As seen earlier, since June 16, 2004 through November 26, 2004, the Plaintiff paid 420,000 won (381,818,181 won + value-added 38,181,81,818 won) as the down payment and intermediate payment of the instant mechanical machine industry from June 16, 2004 to November 26, 2004, the above payment date for KRW 381,818,1818,181 of the supply value shall be deemed as the time of supply of the goods, and as such, the tax invoice of this case differs from the tax invoice of this case issued on February 10, 206, and thus, the pertinent tax invoice of this case constitutes a different tax invoice, and thus, the pertinent tax invoice of this case constitutes an input tax amount for KRW 181,8186,1800.

3. Conclusion

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