The time of supply for goods supplied on an interim basis;

If the sales contract for the office of building is concluded by paying the down payment on the contract date and the intermediate payment is divided into two-lanes and the remainder is to be paid on the date designated by the sales company prior to the occupancy, it shall be the supply of goods subject to interim payment under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the date of the payment of the down payment paid is the time of supply for the goods under Article 21(1)4

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 9 of the

Seoul High Court Decision 85Nu247 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong769No252)

Plaintiff

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu247 Delivered on December 10, 1985

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s taxation of value-added tax in 11,549,013, which was made against the Plaintiff on September 5, 1983 (the first final determination in 1983), shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

(3) The plaintiff had no dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence 1-1 (pit resolution, Eul evidence 1-1-1-2), Eul evidence 2-3-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6 (each tax invoice, Eul evidence 1-2 through 7) and Eul evidence 7-1 through 6 (each sale contract, Eul evidence 1-8 through 13). The plaintiff is a real estate rental business operator who completed business registration on June 10, 1983; 1.3. The plaintiff's remaining supply of non-party 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-3, 105-2-2-2-2-3, 197-19-3 (the above sales contract of non-party 1-6)-19-19-3 (the above sales contract of non-party 1-3)-19-17 (the above 9-3-16-14)-197)-19-17

As the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied goods solely on the basis of the above contract for sale in this case, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the down payment alone was made. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the taxation disposition in this case is unfair, the Defendant stipulates that the goods are supplied at the time of receipt of each part of the price (Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act). Since the price for the sale of the building in this case is part of the price for the sale of the building in this case, the time of payment of the down payment should be deemed to be the time of supply for the goods. According to Article 9(1) and (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the time of receipt of each part of the price is deemed to be the time of supply for the goods, and Article 9 of the same Rule provides that the goods are paid in installments other than the down payment before delivery of the goods.

Therefore, as recognized earlier, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party company of this case is the supply of goods subject to interim payment as stipulated in Article 9 (a) of the above Rules, and accordingly, payment of the down payment, which is part of the price, was made on May 23, 1983 and June 1, 198. As to the down payment, each of the above down payment is the time of supply for each goods as of May 23, 1983 and June 1, 196.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s input tax amount corresponding to the down payment of this case is the so-called input tax amount prior to registration, and cannot be deducted pursuant to Article 17(2)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition to impose value-added tax on the Plaintiff is justifiable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the premise that the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)