In cases where a corporate entrepreneur issues an electronic tax invoice before December 31, 2010, whether it also bears the duty to transmit the details of issuance of the electronic tax invoice under Article 16(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and the duty to submit the list of the total tax invoices under Article 20(1) of the same Act (affirmative)

Article 16(1), (2), and (3), 20(1), and 22(2)2, (4)1, and (8) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “Act”), in full view of the structure, language, and content of the provisions prepared for early settlement of the electronic tax invoice system, and the purport of the provisions prepared for the issuance of the electronic tax invoice system, etc., the corporate entrepreneur shall also be required to submit the list of the electronic tax invoices as stipulated in Article 16(3) of the Act in addition to the duty to transmit the list of the tax invoices as stipulated in Article 20(1) of the Act if the corporate entrepreneur who issued the electronic tax invoice submits the list of the total tax invoices without submitting the list of the total tax invoices, and if it is not transmitted without submitting the list of the total tax invoices under the proviso to Article 20(1) of the Act, the corporate entrepreneur shall be required to submit the list of the additional tax if it is not transmitted.

Articles 16(1), (2) and (3), 20(1), 22(2), 22(4)1, and (8) (see current Article 22(9)) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010);

Pww (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Jeong Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2012Nu1526 decided November 2, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, a tax invoice shall be issued.” Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, a corporate entrepreneur, etc. shall issue a tax invoice by electronic means as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter “electronic tax invoice”), notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), and a corporate entrepreneur may also issue a tax invoice other than the electronic tax invoice by December 31, 2010.”

Meanwhile, Article 16 (3) of the Act provides that “where an electronic tax invoice is issued, a detailed statement of the issuance of the tax invoice shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the deadline prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 20(1) provides that “Where an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice under Article 16(1), (2), etc. of the Act, a list of the total tax invoices by customer shall be submitted along with the pertinent preliminary or final return: Provided, That this shall not apply where a detailed statement of the issuance of the tax invoice is transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to Article 16(3), etc. Furthermore, Article 22(4)1 of the Act provides that “where a person who issues an electronic tax invoice fails to submit a list of the total tax invoices by customer under Article 20(1) of the Act, an additional tax amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of the supply (hereinafter “additional tax not submitted”) shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount, Article 22(2) main sentence and 2 of the Act provides that “in cases where an entrepreneur does not transmit the tax invoice within 20/10.”.

In full view of the structure, language and content of the provisions as above, and the purport of the provisions prepared for early settlement of the electronic tax invoice system, in cases where a corporate entrepreneur issues an electronic tax invoice even before December 31, 2010, the obligation to transmit details of the issuance of the electronic tax invoice as stipulated under Article 16(3) of the Act, as well as the obligation to submit a list of the tax invoices as stipulated under Article 20(1) of the Act, if the corporate entrepreneur who issues the electronic tax invoice transmits the details of the issuance of the tax invoice, the obligation to submit a list of the tax invoices is exempted under the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Act, and the obligation to submit a list of the tax invoices is exempted from the non-direct transmission of the details of the issuance of the tax invoice, but if the list of the tax invoices was submitted only but fails to transmit the details of the issuance of the electronic tax invoice, the corporate entrepreneur shall bear additional tax on non-direct transmission of the details of the issuance of the tax invoice without submitting the list of the electronic tax invoice (Article 28(2).

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court recognized the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff sent a list of its issuance only to part of the electronic tax invoices issued during the first period of 2010 to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but did not transmit the list of its issuance to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the remainder; and (b) did not submit the list of its issuance to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service; and (c) on December 31, 2010, where the Plaintiff, a corporate entrepreneur, issued an electronic tax invoice before the issuance of the tax invoice, did not transmit the list to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the lower court held that the instant disposition, which imposed the penalty tax on the Plaintiff on which the Defendant did not submit the

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above provisions and legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application under the proviso of Article 22 (2) and Article 22 (4) 1 of the Act, as alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)