Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap1995 (Law No. 30, 2014)

The disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount by deeming the date of preparation as a tax invoice different from the fact is legitimate.

The issuance of a tax invoice retroactive to the actual time of supply after the expiration of the taxable period shall not be deemed to constitute a case where there are special circumstances making it difficult to see the Plaintiff’s fault.

Tax amount under Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu705 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

the United Nations A

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap1995 (Law No. 30, 2014)

November 12, 2014

2015.014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 40,551,80 on December 20, 201 against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2011 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for our court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) at the end of the fifth judgment of the first instance court; (b) at the end of the sixth part, the phrase "it is exceptionally permitted to deduct input tax if there are special circumstances as argued by the plaintiff;" and (c) at the end of the seventh part, Paragraph (2) at the end of the fifth part; and (d) at the end of the fifth part, Paragraph (2) at the time of the fifth part; and (e) "the testimony of the witness of the 6th witness of the 8th part, only by the witness of the 6th part and the testimony of the B witness of the first instance trial," is the same as the part of the judgment of the first instance court; and (e) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, where a tax invoice is not issued in the taxable period to which the transaction date belongs due to a special circumstance that makes it difficult for the Plaintiff to make it difficult for him/her to make a tax invoice, the subsequent tax invoice should be entitled to deduct the input tax amount from the input tax amount. However, the tax invoice, which was prepared retrospectively after the expiration of the taxable period, constitutes a tax invoice that contains a false description of the requisite entry items under Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), regardless of such delay, constitutes a “tax invoice that contains false description,” and thus, the relevant input tax amount cannot be deducted from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du5771, Nov. 18, 2004; 2003Du5853, Nov. 26, 2004).

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that, although Article 16(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act imposes a duty to issue a tax invoice on a corporate entrepreneur by electronic means, it is reasonable to view that, on or around December 31, 201, the global global global supplier did not refuse to issue a tax invoice from the beginning, the Plaintiff could not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise that it constitutes a case where a corporate entrepreneur did not issue a tax invoice, and that, on or before January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff could not use the purchaser-issued tax invoice system so that the supplier could directly issue a tax invoice if the supplier did not issue a tax invoice. However, even if Article 16(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act imposes a corporate entrepreneur the duty to issue a tax invoice by electronic means, if the globalCC, which is a corporate entrepreneur, did not issue a tax invoice in violation of the duty to issue a tax invoice, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have received a final tax invoice as if the global supplier violated the duty to issue a tax invoice (including the Plaintiff’s claim).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are fully borne by the losing plaintiff.