Whether the date of preparing a tax invoice should be different from the actual time of transaction, but the transaction is confirmed and the input tax amount should be deducted in the same taxable period (affirmative)

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 entries of the tax invoice, the input tax amount on the fact of transaction should be deducted, but this is limited to the case where the taxable period to which the date of preparation belongs belongs and the

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the National Tax Service

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu17851 delivered on February 19, 1992

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff obtained a facility loan of KRW 100,000,000 during the second taxable period of 198, and paid it as a construction payment, but it is not possible to recognize that the plaintiff paid the construction payment of KRW 80,00,000 in addition to the above amount. The court below held that only the input tax amount of KRW 100,000 should be deducted. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are correct, and there is no error of law as to incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, or violation of the principle of disposition.

If the date of preparing a tax invoice is different from the actual transaction date, and the transaction is confirmed in accordance with the tax invoice, the input tax amount on the relevant transaction shall be deducted, but this is limited to the case where the taxable period to which the date of preparing the tax invoice belongs belongs belongs belongs and the taxable period to which the actual transaction date belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu610, Oct. 8, 1991; 91Nu610, Apr. 26, 1991; 90Nu933, Apr. 26, 1991; 89Nu7528, Feb. 27, 1990; 89Nu7528, etc.). The judgment below to the same effect is correct, and there

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal:

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below concluded the construction contract of this case with the person who is called the regular director of the non-party company without knowing the fact that the company is an enterprise whose main business is to lend only the name without any equipment or machinery and to obtain the fees, and concluded the construction contract of this case, submitted to the bank with a copy of the register of the non-party company's company, a copy of its business registration certificate, a certificate of representative's seal impression, etc., and submitted it to the bank, and paid the construction cost by receiving facility loan from the bank. Accordingly, even though the person who was contracted with the construction of this case and received only the name from the non-party company, the plaintiff was not the non-party company, the plaintiff entered into the construction contract of this case in good faith and received the tax invoice under the name of the non-party company, without knowing such fact, and thus the above supplier cannot be deemed a false invoice. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding of this case is justified, and there is no error in the law of incomplete deliberation or rules of evidence.

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.