Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act

The purport of Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is that a tax invoice is a document evidencing the fact of transactions for the purpose of determining value-added tax and requires a requisite entry in the tax invoice to guarantee the truth of the fact of transactions. Therefore, even if some of the entries are inconsistent with the fact, if the fact of transactions is confirmed by the entries of the tax invoice, the additional tax under Article 22 (2) 2 of the same Act

Article 22(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The case at issue, the case at issue, and the case at issue

Daejeon director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu916 delivered on May 20, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that if part of the requisite entries in the tax invoice issued under Article 16 (1) of the Act is different from the facts, the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply in the case of a corporation shall be paid as an additional tax. Meanwhile, Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that even in a case where part of the requisite entries in the said tax invoice are erroneously entered, if the facts of transactions are confirmed in view of the requisite entries in the said tax invoice or discretionary entries, such matters as prescribed in Article 22 (2) 2 of the Act shall not be included in the tax invoice different from the facts. The purport of the above provision is to ensure the truth of the fact of the fact of the fact of transactions, which is a document evidencing the fact of transactions in order to determine value-added taxes, and thus, it is concluded that even if some of the entries are inconsistent with the facts, the said additional tax shall not be paid if the facts

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the plaintiff company sold its face-to-door products to the exporter company or the non-party Korean association of Korea and issued a tax invoice at the time of supply, the date of preparation is retroactive on the previous date, and since the fact of transaction is confirmed in light of the requisite or voluntary entries in the tax invoice, the defendant cannot impose additional tax pursuant to Article 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, since it is just in accordance with the purport of Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above Enforcement Decree.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)