Where the transaction is confirmed even if the issue date of the tax invoice does not coincide with the actual transaction date, the input tax deduction of the relevant value-added tax shall be made.

If an input tax amount is to be deducted under Article 17(1) and (2)1 (proviso) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a tax invoice delivered at the transaction time under Articles 16(1), 9(1) and (2) of the same Act shall be submitted to the tax authority, but the tax invoice is a document to determine the value-added tax and is issued at the transaction time to ensure the truth of the documentary evidence. Thus, even if a tax invoice is issued and delivered retroactively on the date of preparation after the time of supply or the expiration of the taxable period, the input tax amount of the value-added tax shall be deducted if the transaction is confirmed by the entries

Articles 17(1), 17(2)1, and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu75 Decided September 23, 1986, 86Nu800 Decided March 24, 1987

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu98 delivered on April 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If an input tax amount is to be deducted under Article 17(1) and (2)1 (proviso) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a tax invoice delivered at the transaction time under Articles 16(1), 9(1) and (2) of the same Act shall be submitted to the tax authority. However, the tax invoice is a documentary evidence to determine the value-added tax and is issued at the transaction time to ensure the truth of the documentary evidence. Thus, even if a tax invoice is issued and delivered retroactively on the date of preparation after the time of supply or taxable period, if the transaction is confirmed by the entry of the tax invoice, the input tax amount of the value-added tax shall be deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu800 delivered on March 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu75 delivered on September 23, 1986).

Therefore, according to the legal determination by the court below, since it is inevitable for the defendant to pay a tax invoice and tax amount because of the fact that the transaction in this case subject to zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act is not subject to zero tax rate, it is inevitable to encourage the plaintiff to deliver a tax invoice prepared retroactively to the plaintiff's domestic branch at each transaction date and to pay the value-added tax upon filing a revised return with the tax authority. Accordingly, the input tax amount for the transaction

In addition, the court below has duly confirmed that the plaintiff's domestic branch submitted a final return on February 19, 1982 on the first taxable period and a revised return on the second preliminary return on February 19, 1982 to the defendant, accompanied by the tax invoice under the above transaction that the plaintiff's domestic branch received from the above supersper, and applied for the deduction of the above payment amount as the input tax amount. Accordingly, each of the above revised return filed by the plaintiff's domestic branch appears to have been made within the lawful period of return. Thus, since the tax office under the jurisdiction of the above superspers is subject to zero tax rate, the tax amount paid by the plaintiff as value-added tax on the transaction with the plaintiff is subject to zero tax rate, and the tax invoice under the above transaction shall be returned to the above superspers, but the tax amount shall be deemed to be the input tax amount paid by the plaintiff's domestic branch until the revised return of value-added tax standard and tax amount. Thus, the tax office as the plaintiff's tax office shall receive the plaintiff's input tax amount

Ultimately, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged by the defendant's rejection disposition of this case as illegal. The argument is groundless

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)