Where the issue date of the tax invoice traded with a disguised entrepreneur does not coincide with the transaction time, the input tax invoice

If an entrepreneur purchases actual goods from a seller, even if the entrepreneur is a person who is a bona fide transaction party that trades with the seller in knowledge of such fact, and a tax invoice lent by an entrepreneur, as long as the details of the transaction are traded based on the details of the transaction, even if the date of issuance are somewhat different from the date of transaction, the input tax deduction cannot be denied if the details of the tax invoice stipulated in Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the fact

Article 17 (2) 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu281 Decided March 13, 1984, 85Nu211 Decided July 9, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu75 Decided September 23, 1986

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu59 delivered on December 26, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who traded the above non-party 1 with the above non-party 1's trade name 00,000 won, were 17,449,80 won for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9'

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and legal judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu281 delivered on March 13, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu211 delivered on July 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu75 delivered on September 23, 1986). It is therefore groundless.

Therefore, the defendant's 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 judges.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)