Even if a tax invoice is prepared and delivered retroactively at the time of supply after the time of supply or the expiration of the taxable period, whether the relevant input tax amount should be deducted (affirmative)

Since the tax invoice is a documentary evidence to determine value-added tax and the issuance of it at the transaction time is to guarantee the truth of the documentary evidence, even if the preparation date is delivered after the expiration of the time of supply or the taxable period, if the transaction is confirmed by the entries of the tax invoice, the input tax amount of the value-added tax shall be deducted.

Articles 16, 17, 53, 54, and 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu398 delivered on May 12, 198 (Gong1987, 982) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu956 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong1988, 464) 87Nu964 delivered on February 9, 1988 (Gong1988, 537)

Marinland Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu3926 delivered on September 6, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since a tax invoice is a documentary evidence to determine value-added tax and the issuance of it during a transaction period is to guarantee the truth of the documentary evidence, even if the date of preparation was delivered after the time of supply or the expiration of the taxable period, if the transaction is confirmed by the entries of the tax invoice, the input tax amount of the relevant value-added tax shall be deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu398, May 12, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below made each of the tax invoices of this case where the plaintiff supplied goods worth KRW 54,900,000 on January 31, 1995, KRW 54,000,000 on February 28, 1995, and KRW 17,670,000 on March 31, 199, to the military branch office in Seoul, the main office of the business, and did not prepare each tax invoice, and the date of preparation was recorded retroactively as the actual date of June 1997 after the expiration of the relevant taxable period. However, each of the tax invoices of this case was actually traded as stated in the tax invoice of this case and the amount of value-added tax accordingly. In making the final tax return of value-added tax on January 1, 1995, the above transaction details should be entered in the sales office and the aggregate tax invoice of input tax amount should be deducted. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's judgment is acceptable.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)