logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1987. 9. 22. 선고 87누28 판결
[부가가치세부과처분취소][공1993.6.15.(946),1476]
Main Issues

Whether input tax shall be deducted in cases where the date of supply stated in the tax invoice and the date of preparation are different from the date of actual supply or transaction is confirmed (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

In order to reduce the circulation in which daily tax invoices are issued at each time of supply because the petroleum products are continuously supplied, three days, six days, seven days, ten days, one day, one day, and three days, and the last day of the transaction period by combining them into the unit transaction period, or the last day of the transaction period by the unit transaction period or the last day after the second day, and so long as the transaction of the supply in accordance with the contents of the tax invoice is confirmed, in light of the proviso of Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the input tax amount entered in the tax invoice shall be deducted from the output tax amount.

[Reference Provisions]

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

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Plaintiff-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant-Appellant

Head of Dong Tax Office

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu361 delivered on December 2, 1986

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Under the reasoning of the judgment, the plaintiff purchased petroleum from the same company in accordance with the petroleum supply contract with the same company, and wholesale business operator from March 1, 1983 to June 30 of the same year, and received each amount of petroleum equivalent to the amount from July 1, 1983 to the last day of the same month, but the tax invoice for this was issued continuously by the plaintiff within a fixed period of 7 days or 3 days from January 1, 1983 to June 31, 1983 in order to avoid the spread of purchase issued at the time of delivery of petroleum, the plaintiff's purchase portion from the last day of July 1, 1983 to the last day of the same year shall be 10 days or 11 days, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the supply of the tax invoice for the last day of the period and 2 days from the last day of the trading period or 17 days from the date of the issuance of the tax invoice for each one day after the last day of the trading period.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed this appeal for the reason that it is without merit.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow