1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the Plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial, the reasoning for the instant case is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance; and (b) accordingly, (c) under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. First, the Plaintiffs asserted that, even though the instant tax invoice was issued after the taxable period to which the time of supply of the instant apartment belongs ( November 26, 2013), it is reasonable to allow the input tax deduction pursuant to Article 75 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, since they received the tax invoice within the final return period of value-added tax for February 2013.

Doctrine, Doctrine under the principle of no taxation without law

Dried or Non-Taxation

Summary of Tax Reduction and Exemption

The interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds.

(1) Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides, “Where a tax invoice is issued after the time of supply for goods or services falls under any of the following subparagraphs” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009). However, Article 75 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides, “where a tax invoice is issued after the time of supply for goods or services falls under any of the following subparagraphs, (including where it is issued pursuant to Article 34(3) of the Act)” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).”