The case holding that the input tax amount should be deducted even if the date when the tax invoice was prepared differently from the actual transaction date.

Even if the date of the preparation of the tax invoice is different from the actual transaction date, it is merely that the taxpayer has continuously purchased and used the goods and received one tax invoice from the date after the actual transaction date on the two occasions for the convenience of the transaction, and if the actual transaction was actually made according to the entries in the tax invoice, the input tax amount entered in the tax invoice should be deducted from the output tax amount in light of the proviso of Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

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

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu320 delivered on December 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the amount of value-added tax to be paid by an entrepreneur to the Government shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. Meanwhile, according to the main sentence of Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, although all or part of the requisite entry items are not entered or the input tax amount on a tax invoice different from the fact is not deducted from the output tax amount, the proviso of the same Article and Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, even in cases where some of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice delivered under Article 16(1) of the Act are erroneously entered, if the fact of transactions is confirmed by deeming the necessary entry items or voluntary entry items in the relevant tax invoice as the requisite entry items or discretionary entry items, it shall not be included in

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the tax disposition in this case, which denied the deduction of input tax by the defendant based on its adopted evidence, was unlawful since the date of preparation is different from the actual transaction date, but it was merely derived from the plaintiff's continuous purchase and use of the raw materials for manufacturing sphones, etc., which were made by the non-party on two occasions after the actual transaction date, and that there was a real transaction as stated in the tax invoice as stated in the judgment. Thus, even if the date of preparation of the tax invoice is the date of actual transaction, if the actual transaction is confirmed, the input tax amount stated in the tax invoice should be deducted from the output tax amount, so the tax disposition in this case, which was made by the non-party, is unlawful. The court below's determination is just in light of the provisions of the proviso of Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and it did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence selection or legal principles under Article 60 (2).

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)