propriety of the disposition of non-deduction of the input tax amount on the tax invoice prepared differently for the taxable period

As long as a tax invoice is prepared and issued in the taxable period after the use of a temporary building is approved, the tax invoice of this case shall be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,80,000 for the second period of 207 against the Plaintiff on December 13, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with 90,000,000 won contract for the new construction of the Busan ○○○-dong 645-O's ground (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant temporary building") and received the approval of the use of the instant temporary building from the competent authority on June 19, 207.

B. After that, on August 22, 2007, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of 90,000,000 supply value on August 22, 2007 from ○ Public Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and applied for an early refund of value-added tax for the second-term amount of value-added tax on August 23, 2007 to the Defendant on August 23, 2007, with the purport that the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of 9,00,000,000 won.

C. Accordingly, in the case of the instant temporary building built by the Plaintiff, there is no certified copy of the register and building register, and there is no other data to determine the completion date of the service provision, the Defendant deemed that June 19, 2007, which is the date of approval for the use of the building, as the time of supply for the construction service. The instant tax invoice denied the deduction of the input tax amount of KRW 9,000,000 based on the instant tax invoice on the ground that it was prepared on August 22, 2007, after the lapse of the relevant taxable period, and was a tax invoice different from the fact. On December 13, 2007, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff on December 13, 2007, the amount of KRW 1,800,000 (the aggregate of the additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 90,000 and the additional tax on KRW 900,000 due to

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant tax invoice on a different date from the actual transaction date is due to clerical error by ○○ Public Co., Ltd., which is the other party to the transaction, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff. Moreover, even if a tax invoice was prepared and issued after the actual transaction date, if the relevant transaction is recognized based on the details stated in the relevant tax invoice, the relevant value-added tax input tax should be deducted as a matter of course. Thus, the instant disposition that did not deduct

(b) Related statutes;

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

C. Determination

Article 17 (2) 1-2 (main sentence) of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to the case where the date of preparing the tax invoice differs from the fact that the actual date of preparing the tax invoice is a part of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice which is denied under the interpretation of the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1-2. In such a case, if the transaction is verified as to the remaining entry of the tax invoice under Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the input tax amount on the said transaction should be deducted, but it shall be limited to the case where the taxable period to which the actual date of preparing the tax invoice belongs belongs is the same (in this case, the "date of preparing the tax invoice" shall be entered as the date of the actual preparation, but it shall not be entered as the date of the actual transaction or a certain period retroactive entry, and even if the plaintiff prepared the tax invoice and notified the tax invoice to the plaintiff during the taxable period, it shall be acknowledged that it constitutes the approval of the use of the temporary building of this case for which was delivered for the taxable period.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.