The input tax amount of the tax invoice prepared after the lapse of the taxable period shall not be deducted from the output tax amount.

Even if a tax invoice is prepared after the expiration of the taxable period, because some of the requisite entries are different from the fact, the input tax amount is not deducted from the output tax amount.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 24,261,280 on March 14, 2006 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2006 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6.

A. The plaintiff, around June 2005, was sold in lots by ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. , and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 21, 2005 with respect to the above real estate on the ground of sale and purchase as of June 11, 2005 (However, the sales contract (Evidence 1) submitted by the plaintiff is written on June 21, 2005 that the purchase price of the building is KRW 272 million, the supply price of the building portion is KRW 192,548,00, and the remaining supply price of the building portion is KRW 200,000,000 after June 21, 2005, KRW 205,000,000, KRW 206,000,000, KRW 365,000,000,0000, KRW 2065,006,000,000,006,06,000.

B. On July 9, 2005, the Plaintiff received a business registration certificate on the same day as the real estate rental business operator applied for the said real estate as the place of business. At that time, the Plaintiff received one tax invoice for the building portion (supply price of KRW 148,658,00, value-added tax 14,86,000, value-added tax) and one tax invoice for the land portion (supply price of KRW 46,476,00), each of which was issued by the trader on June 21, 2005 (the supply price of KRW 43,890,000, value-added tax 4,389,000, value-added tax 4,389,000) and one tax invoice for the land portion (the supply price of KRW 13,721,000) (the above tax invoice is referred to as the “tax invoice for the building”).

C. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the final return of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax on July 25, 2005 as the input tax amount that deducts the aggregate of 19,25,000 won (14,86,000 won + 4,389,000 won) stated in the instant tax invoice, and received a refund on August 2005.

D. On March 14, 2006, the Defendant denied the deduction for the reason that part of the requisite entry in the main sentence of Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, the Defendant imposed an additional tax amount of KRW 24,261,280 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on KRW 19,25,00 of the value-added tax which was already deducted for the reason that it cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 54 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the actual transaction fact is confirmed by relevant documentary evidence, etc., a tax invoice may be issued by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the relevant transaction date falls, if a tax invoice is issued as of the date of issuance of the relevant goods or services. Thus, if a tax invoice is received and the value-added tax is faithfully reported pursuant to Article 54 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the taxpayer or the recipient does not gain unjust benefits and does not interfere with the efficient enforcement of the value-added tax system, such special provision

(2) In addition, since the Plaintiff started a new business by filing an application for business registration on July 9, 2005, the taxable period of value-added tax on the Plaintiff is from July 9, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which was the date of commencing the business pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act. Meanwhile, the time of supply for the said real estate pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Act, which provides for the time of the supply of goods, is after July 9, 2005, when the tax invoice was issued. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the tax invoice after the taxable period to which the time of supply for the said real estate belongs.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction on the ground that the date of preparation of the instant tax invoice differs from the time of actual supply is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that an input tax amount should be deducted by a tax invoice prepared retroactively from the time of supply after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, the phrase "the date of preparation, which is a part of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice," which is denied under the interpretation of the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Act, means the case where the date of actual preparation of the tax invoice is different from the fact of transaction. In such a case, if the transaction is confirmed in accordance with the remaining entry of the tax invoice under Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree, the input tax amount on the said transaction shall be deducted. However, if the taxable period to which the date of actual preparation belongs is the same (in such a case, the "date of preparation on the tax invoice" shall be deemed the date of actual preparation, but it shall be limited to the case where the tax invoice is prepared and delivered at the time of transaction, which is an essential document to determine the value-added tax amount, and its function shall be adopted between taxpayers and taxpayers at the pre-development period.

Therefore, even if a tax invoice prepared after the expiration of the taxable period was prepared retroactively at the time of supply, the tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice in which part of the requisite entry items is entered differently from the facts under the main sentence of Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and in this case, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18,

Under the above legal principle, the time of supply for the above real estate is June 21, 2005, for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made. The plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case, which was prepared retrospectively on June 21, 2005 and June 30, 2005, after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, and applied for the deduction of the input tax amount. Thus, the input tax amount in this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and it shall not be viewed as different even if the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case in accordance with the special case to issue the tax invoice under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree.

(2) As to the assertion that a tax invoice is issued within the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs, Article 9(3) of the Act provides that where a tax invoice is issued for all or part of the price for goods and the price received at the same time prior to the arrival of the time of supply for goods, the time of delivery shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer as to the said real estate and paid any balance thereafter, and then received the tax invoice of this case, stating the date of preparation as retrospectively as the date of the payment for the down payment and the balance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax invoice was issued at the same time, as provided in the above provision.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, and the instant disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without any justifiable reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.