Inasmuch as it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company agreed to pay the down payment other than the progress payment, it cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice.

Considering the details of the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company’s financial transaction and the process of account transfer, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, in fact, agreed to pay the non-paid down payment once to the Non-Party Company and paid only part of the down payment according to the agreement. Therefore, it cannot be deemed an excessive tax invoice issued.

Article 9 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap3887 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

Head of the tax office;

September 12, 2013

November 14, 2013

1. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of the value-added tax No. 2010 against the Plaintiff on May 10, 2012 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2011, the Plaintiff is running real estate leasing business in the above building after the O3 of the O-gu O3 removed the building located in 118 and 119, and the CCC was newly built on the third ground above the above real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”).

B. On November 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Construction Co., Ltd.”) to subcontract the instant construction project to the non-party company (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the period of construction (from November 1, 2010 to December 30, 201), the construction cost OOO of the construction cost (the value-added tax separate from the value-added tax and the completed portion shall be paid as a progress payment corresponding to the process) and received a refund of value-added tax in relation to the payment of the construction price from the Defendant.

C. As a result of the on-site investigation on the refund of value-added tax against the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a tax invoice that is the supply price OOO for the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second period of the value-added tax (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in 2010, and received only the OOO for the payment of the construction price on 13 occasions. On May 10, 2012, on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff was not allowed to deduct the input tax amount of the OOO, and imposed an OOO (including additional tax OOO) for the second period of the value-added tax for the second period of the 2010.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 27, 2012, but was dismissed on November 5, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 4 through 6, Eul Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the supply value of the invoice of this case includes the down payment claim amount in addition to the down payment claim amount in addition to the OOOwon, the disposition of this case is unfair as a tax invoice issued excessively.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment and the down payment as well as the down payment once payment after concluding the instant contract with the Nonparty Company. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice, which is the supply price OOO, by the Nonparty Company.

2) On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of the company. On January 3, 2011, the non-party company transferred only the progress payment to the Plaintiff’s account again, and the non-party company received a re-deposit of OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) from the non-party company’s account. The non-party company transferred the remainder of the O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O of the above company’s account from the non-party company’s account.

3) The non-party company included an OO (including value-added tax) that was not paid in connection with the down payment as credit account sales in the year 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7, witness testimony of DoD, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that the time when the service is supplied shall be when the service is supplied, or when the goods, facilities, or rights are used. Article 22 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that where the service is supplied on the basis of payment, interim payment, long-term installment, or other conditional terms or conditions, or where the service cannot be supplied on the basis of a unit of supply is continuously supplied, the time each portion of the price is to be received shall be the time of supply of the service. Article 9(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Mar. 23, 2013) provides that the period from the date the goods are delivered to six months or more.

2) The instant construction project is a case where the payment of the price, other than the down payment, is made in installments before the completion of the provision of the service, and the period from the date when the down payment is made to the date when the balance is paid is not less than 6 months and thus, provides the services subject to interim payment under Article 9

As seen in the above facts, although the Plaintiff did not specify in the contract that he will pay the down payment other than the progress payment, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment orally after the conclusion of the contract, and agreed to pay the down payment, and, in fact on December 30, 2010, transferred it to the account of the non-party company to the non-party company, and the non-party company accounts for the progress payment and the down payment separately. In other words, considering the details of the financial transaction and the process of account transfer of the Plaintiff and the non-party company, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually agreed to pay the down payment once between the non-party company and the non-party company the part of the down payment under the agreement.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the tax invoice of this case was issued excessively in addition to the payment for completed portion and the down payment at the time of receiving each portion of the price pursuant to Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.