beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion at the appellate court as stated in the following subparagraphs. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion of appeal
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that even if the Plaintiff received a tax invoice after the lapse of the taxable period following the amendment of Article 75 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, if the Plaintiff received the tax invoice only within the time limit for the return of value-added tax for the taxable period of the pertinent transaction, it would be possible to obtain the input tax deduction if the Plaintiff received the tax invoice. Accordingly, Article 75 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree
B. (1) Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26983, Feb. 17, 2016) provides that “any of the following cases shall be applicable” under the proviso to Article 39(1)2 of the Act. Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “A tax invoice issued after the time of supply for goods or services falls under any of the following cases” (Article 39(1)3 of the Act provides that “a tax invoice issued after the time of supply for the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, which has been determined by the due date for the final return for the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, has been determined.” (2) Article 75 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input
This can be seen as a measure taken from policy consideration to reduce taxpayers' burden, so Article 75 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree is unconstitutional.