(a) Whether paying the price for manufacturing machinery by dividing it into down payment and intermediate payment in proportion to the manufacturing process constitutes the supply of goods subject to interim payment under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the time of supply for goods

B. Whether Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are invalid without the basis for delegation under Article 4 of the same Act

(c) Whether the supply of goods for opening or transferring a local letter of credit is included in "exported goods" to which Article 11 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act applies;

(a) If, upon entering into a contract for the manufacture and supply of machinery, the parties agree to pay the manufacturing price in proportion to the manufacturing process of each machinery, and to pay the down payment and the intermediate payment pursuant to the agreement, it shall be the supply of goods upon interim payments, and the time of supply for the goods is when the intermediate payment, which is part of the price, is paid

B. In light of Articles 9(1) and 9(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 9 of the same Rule only provides the meaning of the supply of goods subject to interim payment and does not stipulate the time of supply for the goods. Since Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time of supply is based on the delegation provision under Article 9(4) of the same Act, each provision of the above Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule shall not be deemed as a provision that is returned to be contrary to the spirit of Article 9(4) of the Act of the parent corporation or was enacted without the basis

C. Under Article 11(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of the exported goods including the goods supplied by an entrepreneur through a local letter of credit and a letter of approval for purchase of raw materials for export. In this case, not only the goods supplied through a local letter of credit in light of the substance over form principle but also the goods supplied on the premise of its establishment before the local letter of credit is opened,

(a)Article 9(1) and Article 9(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 9(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; Article 11(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu247 delivered on December 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu148 delivered on September 25, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu569 delivered on March 12, 1985

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu100 delivered on March 29, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. First, we examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

According to Article 9(1) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where goods are supplied on an interim basis, the time each part of the price is determined to be the time of supply for the goods, and according to Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time each part of the price is determined to be supplied is deemed to be the time of supply for the goods.

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the contract for the manufacture and supply of machinery between the plaintiffs and the non-party operating the machinery manufacturing business was concluded on the basis of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning and the contract for the payment of the manufacture price in proportion to the manufacturing process of each machinery, and the contract deposit and the intermediate payment was paid in accordance with its reasoning, it would be the supply of goods subject to interim payment. Accordingly, the time of supply for the goods is when the part of the price was paid.

In comparison with records, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs' input tax amount was not deducted from the output tax amount on the grounds that five copies of the tax invoice for 129,000,000 won of the down payment and the intermediate payment of the instant machinery supplied by the non-party who is the supplier (29,000,000 won No. 6) were paid after the time of supply, and that all the time of supply and the supply price of the goods are different from the fact, and therefore, the defendant did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the time of supply

Article 9(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the general principle of time of supply for the goods shall be prescribed in the Presidential Decree as to the specific matters, and Article 21(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time when each part of the price is to be received shall be deemed the time of supply for the supply of goods subject to interim payment under Article 21(1)4 of the same Act. Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the case of the supply of goods subject to interim payment condition shall be the time of supply for the goods in installments before the delivery is completed. Article 9 of the same Rule provides that the meaning of the supply of goods subject to interim payment condition shall be defined and does not stipulate the time of supply for the goods, and Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the provision of Article 9(4) of the same Act, which provides the time of supply, shall not be deemed null and void since each provision of the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule is based on the delegation provision of Article 9(4) of the same Act.

The issue is eventually groundless.

2. The following defendant litigation performers' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

According to Article 11(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of the exported goods including the goods supplied by an entrepreneur through a local letter of credit and a letter of approval for purchase of raw materials for export. In this case, although there is no express provision regarding the time of opening a local letter of credit, as well as the goods supplied by a local letter of credit under the principle of substantial taxation, and the goods supplied under the premise of opening a local letter of credit shall be included in

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs' goods sold to Jinjin Co., Ltd. shall be deemed to fall under the exported goods under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the above purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of zero-rate tax rate or the zero-rate tax rate. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, all of the appeals in this case are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)