Whether the input tax amount of the tax invoice prepared after the lapse of the taxable period is deducted from the output tax amount.

Even if a tax invoice is prepared after the expiration of the taxable period, because some of the requisite entries are different from the fact, the input tax amount is not deducted from the output tax amount.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 62,51,070 on March 14, 2006 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2006 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5.

A. The Plaintiff, on June 2005, purchased a parcel of real estate from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○'s term (hereinafter referred to as "real estate's term"), and on June 21, 2005, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase in the name of the Plaintiff on June 8, 2005 (However, the sales contract (Evidence A1) submitted by the Plaintiff is written on June 21, 2005; KRW 70 million; KRW 495,528,00; KRW 300; KRW 49,000; KRW 49,000; KRW 50; KRW 305,00,000; KRW 405,000; KRW 405,00,000; and KRW 305,000,000; KRW 465,005,06,065).

B. On July 9, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for a real estate rental business registration and received a business registration certificate on the same day. Around that time, the Plaintiff received from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. a tax invoice for the portion of the building (supply price of KRW 346,869,00, value-added tax of KRW 34,687,00) and a tax invoice for the portion of land (supply price of KRW 108,44,00) on June 22, 2005, and one tax invoice for the portion of the building (supply price of KRW 148,658,000, value-added tax of KRW 14,86,000) and one tax invoice for the portion of the land (value of supply price of KRW 46,476,00,00) and one tax invoice for the portion of the land (value of KRW 26,400,000).

C. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the final return of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax on July 25, 2005 as the input tax amount that deducts the aggregate of 49,553,000 won (34,687,000 won + 14,866,00 won) stated in the instant tax invoice, and received a refund on August 2005.

D. On March 14, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose KRW 62,51,070,070, which added an additional tax to KRW 49,553,000, which was already deducted for the reason that part of the requisite entry in the main sentence of Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, cannot be deducted from the input tax amount, on the ground that the tax invoice of this case was prepared retroactively after the taxable period to which the time of supply of the pertinent real estate belongs (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition's order").

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 54 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the actual transaction fact is confirmed by relevant documentary evidence, etc., a tax invoice may be issued by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of the supply of goods or services falls, if the tax invoice is issued as of the date of the issue of the relevant transaction, and the tax invoice may be issued by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of the supply of goods or services falls. Thus, if a tax invoice is received, and the value-added tax is reported in good faith, and there is no undue benefit between the

(2) In addition, since the Plaintiff started a new business upon filing an application for business registration on July 9, 2005, the taxable period of value-added tax on the Plaintiff is from July 9, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which was the date of commencing the business pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act, and the time of supply for the said real estate pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Act, which provides for the time of supply for the goods, is after July 9, 2005, when the tax invoice is issued. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the tax invoice after the taxable period to which the time of supply for the said real estate belongs.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction on the ground that the date of preparation of the instant tax invoice differs from the time of actual supply is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) On the argument that the input tax amount under the tax invoice, which was prepared retrospectively after the expiration of the tax period to which the time of supply belongs, shall also be deducted.

Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Act provides that "the date of preparation, which is a part of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice, is entered differently from the fact," where the actual preparation date of the tax invoice is different from the fact, and even in such a case, if the transaction is confirmed in accordance with the remaining entry items of the tax invoice under Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree, the input tax amount on the relevant transaction should be deducted. However, if the taxable period to which the actual preparation date of the tax invoice belongs belongs is the same (in this case, the "date of preparation" in the tax invoice shall be entered as the actual preparation date, but it shall not be entered retroactively or retroactively in the actual transaction date, because it is for the purpose of securing the truth of the tax invoice to issue documentary evidence to determine the value-added tax amount, and it is for the purpose of securing the tax invoice's smooth delivery and verification of the tax amount between the taxpayer and the taxpayer's trade name and its function within the tax period.

Therefore, even if a tax invoice prepared after the expiration of the taxable period was prepared retroactively at the time of supply, since part of the requisite entry items under the main sentence of Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes a tax invoice with different facts, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004).

Under the above legal principle, the time of supply for the above real estate is June 21, 2005, where the ownership transfer registration has been made. The plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case, which was issued on June 21, 2005 and on June 30, 2005, after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, and applied for the deduction of the input tax amount. Thus, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and it shall not be viewed as different even if the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case in accordance with the special case to issue the tax invoice under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree.

(2) As to the assertion that a tax invoice has been issued within the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, Article 9(3) of the Act provides that where a tax invoice is issued for all or part of the price for goods and the price received at the same time prior to the arrival of the time of supply for goods, the time of delivery shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer as to the said real estate and paid any balance thereafter, and then received the tax invoice of this case, stating the date of preparation as retrospectively as the date of the payment for the down payment and the balance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax invoice was issued at the same time, as provided in the above provision.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, and the instant disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.