Whether the time when the time of supply for goods is determined

The fact that a tax invoice shall be issued at the time of supply for the goods, even if the purchase price for the goods has been agreed to settle after the rent.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 65,012,390 against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 24, 2001, ○○○ Co., Ltd. decided to have a semiconductor business sector, including inventory assets owned by ○ Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant inventory assets”). On July 2, 2001, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the instant inventory assets from ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). On or around July 2, 2001, the Plaintiff received the instant transfer contract from ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). On December 14, 2001, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) equivalent to KRW 3,250,619,342 of the supply value on December 14, 201, and filed a return of value-added tax for the second period of two years in 2001.

B. The Defendant, on July 2, 2001, received the instant inventory assets from ○○ Co., Ltd., and thus, on the ground that the time of supply for the instant inventory assets was July 2, 2001, the instant disposition was issued on December 14, 2001 on June 7, 2006 on the ground that the instant tax invoice was issued only on December 14, 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, evidence 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant sales contract is based on Article 6 of the instant transfer contract, and is made on the condition of determining the price through a separate inspection. The supply price determined only after December 14, 2001, and the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice at that time. As such, the time of supply for the instant inventory assets should be deemed as December 14, 2001. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) In relation to the instant transfer contract, according to the provisions of Articles 4 and 7 of the contract, the transfer price is set at 30 billion won, but the instant inventory assets are classified as current assets subject to settlement and are not included in the said contract amount. However, the transferee selected one of the five accounting corporations with the consent of the transferor among the five accounting corporations with the domestic sales sales, and confirmed the amount by inspecting the situation of current assets subject to settlement.

(2) On October 30, 2001, ○○ Co., Ltd. drafted an agreement on the inspection of inventory assets with ○○ Electronic Co., Ltd., and according to this, ○ Accounting Co., Ltd., which conducts the above inspection, jointly selected ○ Accounting Co., Ltd., but with respect to inventory assets subject to the inspection, ○○ Accounting Co., Ltd., in the presence of ○ Electronic Co., Ltd. on July 2, 2001, ○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○ Co., Ltd.

(3) Based on the above results of the inspection, ○ Electronic Co., Ltd. and ○○○ Co., Ltd. agreed on December 14, 2001 to determine the value of the instant inventory assets as KRW 3,250,619,342 provisionally, and accordingly, the instant tax invoice was received.

(4) On the other hand, on July 2, 2001, the Plaintiff included the value of the instant and inventory assets as KRW 3,250,618,342 in the preceding table.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, and Eul evidence 2 to 7 (including above number)

D. Determination

In full view of the purport of Articles 6(1) and 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the supply of goods refers to the transfer or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds, and in light of the nature of value-added tax, such transfer or transfer is premised on the transfer of ownership so that the goods can be used and consumed (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2926 Decided October 13, 2006).

According to the above facts, the contract was concluded with only a settlement of some of the purchase price in relation to the contract of this case, and accordingly, the delivery of the inventory assets of this case was made on July 2, 2001, and the plaintiff was appropriated in the preceding table with the value of the inventory assets of this case in KRW 3,250,618,342 on that day. In the case of the inventory assets of this case, the plaintiff was able to use and consume the inventory assets of this case from that time when the transfer of the goods is necessary for the supply of the goods. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the conditional and fixed-term sale constitutes the time when the conditions are met or the sale becomes final and conclusive after the lapse of the time. Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is related to the supply of services, and thus it cannot be applied to this case at issue

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the imposition of additional tax is unfair on the ground that the tax invoice provides for the entry of the supply value in the tax invoice, but the fact that the Plaintiff appropriated the value of the inventory assets of this case on July 2, 2001, as seen earlier, and even if it was decided to settle accounts after the purchase price, Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that when an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, the tax invoice shall be issued at the time of supply provided in Article 9 of the Act, and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax invoice shall be issued at the time of supply provided in Article 9 of the Act. Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax invoice shall be revised and issued, as prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the period of issuance shall be limited until the tax authority revises or notifies the tax base and amount of tax for the same transaction. However, the Value-Added Tax Act is exceptionally permitted to issue the revised tax invoice in cases where the tax base and amount are required due to correct due to mistake (see this part 2727).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu28771, May 08)]

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 65,012,390 against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2006 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 광ｏｏ 주식회사(이하 '광ｏｏ'라고 한다)는 2001. 5. 24. ｏｏ전자 주식회사(이하 'ｏｏ전자'라고 한다)와의 사이에 ｏｏ전자의 반도체사업부문 영업과 관련된 자산, 부채, 종업원 및 계약상의 지위 일체를 포괄적으로 양수하기로 약정하였다(이하 '이 사건 양도계약'이라고 한다).

나. 그 후 원고는 모회사인 광ｏｏ으로부터 광ｏｏ이 ｏｏ전자로부터 양수받은 위 영업 관련 자산 중 재고자산(원재료, 미착품, 재공품 및 기타 재고자산을 말한다. 이하 '이 사건 재고자산'이라고 한다)을 매수하기로 하고, 2001. 7. 2. 광ｏｏ으로부터 이 사건 재고자산을 인도받은 다음, 2001. 12. 14. 광ｏｏ으로부터 공급가액 3,250,619,342원의 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 수취하여 매입세액을 공제하여 2001년 2기 부가가치세 신고를 하였다.

다. 피고는 원고가 2001. 7. 2. 광ｏｏ으로부터 이 사건 재고자산을 인도받았으므로 이 사건 재고자산의 공급시기는 2001. 7. 2.임에도 불구하고 그 이후인 2001. 12. 14. 에야 비로소 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받아 매입세액을 공제받았다는 이유로 2006. 6. 7. 원고에 대하여 2001년 2기 부가가치세(가산세) 65,012,390원을 경정 · 고지하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

At the time of delivery of the inventory assets of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have completed the sales contract itself, which is the most important factor of the sales contract. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was the supply of the goods at that time, and it shall be deemed that there was the supply of the goods only after December 14, 2001, for which the sales price for the inventory assets of this case was determined. Thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case, which was deemed to have been the time of supply for the goods at the time of delivery of the inventory assets of this case, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자는 이 사건 양도계약을 체결함에 있어 양수도대금을 300억원으로 정하되, 다만 이 사건 재고자산 등 정산이 필요한 유동자산과 ｏｏ전자의 유동부채는 위 양수도대금에서 제외하고, 광ｏｏ은 국내 매출액 상위 5대 회계법인 중 ｏｏ전자의 동의를 받은 1인을 선정하여 유동자산 및 유동부채의 상황을 실사하여 그 실사결과를 ｏｏ전자에 통지하며, ｏｏ전자는 그에 대한 이의 유무를 광ｏｏ에 통지하여 그에 따라 확정되는 금액을 지급받을 당사자가 지정하는 계좌에 현금으로 입금하기로 약정하였다.

(2) 원고가 광ｏｏ으로부터 이 사건 재고자산을 인도받은 2001. 7. 2. 당시에는 위와 같이 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 이 사건 재고자산의 가액이 확정되어 있지 않았던 관계로, 원고와 광ｏｏ은 추후 실사를 통해 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 확정될 이 사건 재고자산의 가액에 따라 이 사건 재고자산에 대한 매매대금을 정하기로 약정하였다.

(3) 그 후 광ｏｏ은 2001. 10. 30. ｏｏ전자와의 사이에 유동자산 및 유동부채 실사에 관한 합의서를 작성하였는데, 이에 의하면 위와 같은 실사를 수행할 회계법인으로 ｏｏ회계법인을 공동으로 선정하되, 실사대상 재고자산에 대하여는 2001. 7. 2. ｏｏ회계법인의 입회하에 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자에서 동시에 수행한 상호 실물 확인 결과를 이용하기로 하였다.

(4) 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자는 2001. 12. 14. 위 ｏｏ회계법인의 실사결과를 토대로 이사건 재고자산의 가액을 잠정적으로 3,250,619,342원으로 결정하기로 합의하였고, 이에 따라 같은 날 광ｏｏ은 위와 같이 결정된 가액을 공급가액으로 하는 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행하여 원고에게 교부하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, oral argument

purport of this chapter

D. Determination

(1) Article 6 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be an delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." Here, "the delivery or transfer of goods by contractual grounds" refers to only the case of delivery or transfer of goods by a "completion" contract meeting all the main elements of the contract, and the case of delivery or transfer of goods by reason that does not meet the important elements of the contract itself, which cannot be viewed as a "the supply of goods" as stipulated in the above provision.

(2) 돌이켜 이 사건을 보면, 원고가 2001. 7. 2. 광ｏｏ으로부터 이 사건 재고자산을 매수하기로 하여 인도받기는 하였으나, 당시 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 이 사건 재고자산의 가액이 확정되지 않아 원고와 광ｏｏ도 이 사건 재고자산에 대한 매매대금을 정하지 못하고 추후 실사를 통해 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 확정되는 이 사건 재고자산의 가액에 따라 매매대금을 정하기로 약정한 사실, 그 후 2001. 12. 14. 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 이 사건 재고자산의 가액이 확정되자 광ｏｏ은 이를 공급가액으로 하여 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같은바, 그렇다면 원고가 이 사건 재고자산을 인도받은 2001. 7. 2.에는 원고가 광ｏｏ으로부터 이 사건 재고자산을 매수하기로 하는 잠정적인 합의가 있기는 하였으나 당시에는 매매계약의 가장 중요한 요소인 매매대금이 전혀 정해져 있지 않은 상태이었으므로 위와 같은 잠정적인 합의는 그 자체로서 '완성된 계약상의 원인'에 해당한다고 볼 수 없어 2001. 7. 2. 이 사건 재고자산의 공급이 있었다고 볼 수 없다 할 것이고, 그 후 2001. 12. 14. 광ｏｏ과 ｏｏ전자 사이에 확정된 이 사건 재고자산의 가액에 따라 이 사건 재고자산의 매매대금이 정해짐으로써 비로소 원고와 광ｏｏ 사이의 매매계약이 완성되어 그때 이 사건 재고자산의 공급이 이루어졌다고 볼 것이다(매매대금이 정해진 시기인 2001. 12. 14.이 부가가치세법 제9조 제1항 제3호가 정하는 '재화의 공급이 확정되는 때'에 해당한다 할 것이다).

If such is not considered as above, a tax invoice to be issued at the time of supply, in principle, even though the purchase price is not yet determined, has been forced to be issued without or at will entered in the supply price (the purchase price) as the requisite entry, and there is no existence to be unfair, and it cannot be deemed that the revised tax invoice system was prepared to prepare for such cases.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the disposition of this case and cancelling it.