(a) If the date of preparation of the tax invoice and the actual time of transaction belong to a different taxable period, the addition of the input tax credit;

(b) Whether the provisions of Articles 21(1)4 and 22 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act are invalid;

(c) Time of supply under the Value-Added Tax Act where a promissory note is delivered several times in accordance with the contractor's flag and demand for payment by concluding a contract for factory expansion works and a contract for manufacture and supply of machinery and equipment by stipulating the installment payment based on the existing price;

A. If the date of preparation of a tax invoice is different from the actual transaction date, and the fact of transaction is confirmed in accordance with the entry of the tax invoice, the input tax amount on the fact of transaction shall be deducted, but this is limited only to the case where the taxable period to which the date of preparation belongs belongs and the taxable period to which the

B. Article 9(1) and (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act provides that the time of supply for goods and services shall be determined by the Presidential Decree as to the specific matters, and Articles 21(1)4 and 22 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the time of supply for the supply of goods and services subject to completion shall be deemed to be the time of supply for the supply of goods and services subject to completion standards. This does not go against the purport of Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act, since Article 9(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the specific classification and provision of the time of supply for other special forms of supply, which is different from the case

(c) The case holding that since the contract for factory expansion works and the contract for the manufacture and supply of machinery and equipment are concluded, in case where a promissory note is delivered in several partitions in accordance with the contractor's request for payment and payment of the price, since the contract is concluded to pay the remainder other than advance payment or down payment in several installments on the basis that the payment date is not specified at the time of each contract, it constitutes a case where the goods or services are supplied under the condition of payment for completion as provided in Articles 21 (1) 4 and 22 subparagraph 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, it is reasonable to conclude that the date on which each contract is concluded to pay the price is "when each part of the price is decided to be paid" and it is the time of supply, the delivery date which is not the due date of the above promissory note is the

(a) Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 9(1), Article 9(2), Article 9(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 21(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu933 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1545), 91Nu610 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2750), 92Nu4574 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 107) B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu294 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 896)

Sungwon River Co. Ltd.

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu2597 delivered on December 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If the date of the preparation of a tax invoice is different from the actual transaction date, the input tax amount for the said fact-finding transaction should be deducted, but it is a party member's opinion that only the case where the taxable period to which the date of the preparation of the tax invoice belongs belongs belongs is the same as the actual transaction period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4574, Feb. 9, 1993), and the judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the tax invoice. The theory of lawsuit is that the above opinion of the party member should be modified, but it cannot be accepted as a non-founded assertion.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 9(1) and (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for general and general provisions concerning the time of supply for goods and services, while prescribing the specific matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 9(4) of the same Act, and Article 21(1)4 and Article 22 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time of supply for goods and services subject to the condition of payment for completion shall be deemed the time of supply for each portion of the price, which is the time of supply for the supply of goods and services subject to the condition of payment for completion. This does not violate the purport of Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act by specifically distinguishing and stipulating the time of supply for other specific forms of supply under delegation under Article 9(4) of the same Act, and it does not violate the purport of Article 9(1) and (2) of the same Act (see, e.g

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. On the third ground for appeal

As determined by the court below, if the plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work for factory expansion of KRW 595,650,00 for the plaintiff with the non-party large-scale industry company, entered into a contract for construction work for machinery and equipment of KRW 1,595,00,000 with the non-party large-scale company, and agreed to pay the remainder other than advance payment or down payment in several installments, the contract constitutes a case where the goods or services are supplied under the condition of payment for completion as provided in Articles 21 (1) 4 and 22 subparagraph 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the time of supply is the time when each portion of the price is paid. If the plaintiff and the above company did not specifically specify the date of payment at the time of entering into the contract, it is reasonable to enter into a contract for construction work for factory extension of KRW 595,650,00,000 for each of the above construction work and receive each portion of the price. Thus, if the plaintiff received each of the above payment for each of the above company's nature and payment for each of promissory note, it is not reasonable.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)