(a) Where the fact of transaction is confirmed even if the preparation and delivery of the tax invoice was made and delivered retroactively at the time of supply, the input tax deduction of the value-added tax;

(b) Whether an entrepreneur constitutes a tax invoice under Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act where a tax invoice is issued without receiving the whole or any part of the value of supply and the amount of tax of goods;

(c) Measures by the tax authorities that receive the value-added tax amount from transactions subject to zero tax rate;

A. If an input tax amount is to be deducted under Article 17(1) and proviso of Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice delivered at the transaction period under Articles 16(1), 9(1) and (2) of the said Act shall be submitted to the tax authority, but the tax invoice is a documentary evidence to determine the value-added tax amount and is issued and delivered at the transaction period is to ensure the truth of the documentary evidence. Thus, even if a tax invoice is prepared and delivered retroactively after the time of supply or the expiration of the taxable period, the input tax amount of the relevant value-added tax shall be deducted if

B. In light of the interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice must be prepared and delivered even if the price is not actually paid or received, as long as the transaction has been actually conducted between an entrepreneur and the other party to the transaction. Thus, a tax invoice is issued without receiving all or part of the value of the goods and the amount of the tax, and the tax invoice cannot be deemed as a tax invoice where the content is different from the fact.

(c) If any transaction is subject to zero tax rate, and the tax authority has received the value-added tax from an entrepreneur, it would be of the nature to return such tax amount to the entrepreneur, but if the other party fails to return it even until the return of the value-added tax base or revised return is filed, along with the tax invoice stating the relevant tax amount within the lawful period, the relevant tax amount shall be deemed as the input tax amount paid to the entrepreneur

(a) Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 17(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu398 Decided May 12, 1987

Attorney Jeon Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu375 decided September 24, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 17 (1) and (2) (proviso) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall submit a tax invoice delivered at the transaction time under Articles 16 (1), 9 (1) and (2) of the same Act to the tax authority. However, since the tax invoice is an evidential document to determine the value-added tax and it is to ensure the truth of the documentary evidence, it is ultimately necessary to issue the tax invoice at the transaction time, even if the relevant tax invoice is prepared and delivered retroactively after the time of supply or the taxable period expires, if the transaction is confirmed by the entry of the tax invoice, the relevant value-added tax should be deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu398, May 12, 1987). Further, the tax invoice is interpreted as a interpretation of Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, even if there is no actual transaction between the other party to the transaction and the other party to the transaction, and thus, the tax invoice has to be issued without returning the whole or part of the supply value-added tax and value-added tax until it is delivered.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recommended the payment of the tax invoice and tax amount on service transactions with the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which are subject to zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act, on the premise that the plaintiff is not subject to zero-rate tax rate. Thus, since the plaintiff was issued a tax invoice prepared retroactively from the plaintiff without receiving the added tax amount on such transaction at the actual transaction date, and he also issued the tax invoice to the plaintiff at the actual transaction date, and he also confirmed that the tax amount was paid by the tax authority while filing a return of value-added tax or revised return to the tax authority, but it did not affect the conclusion that the added tax amount is the value-added tax amount, which is the basis for calculating the payable tax amount or the refundable tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act, since the plaintiff is not subject to zero-rate tax rate, the above tax invoice and the input tax amount, which is the basis for calculating the input tax amount or the refundable tax amount, should be actually and effectively collected by the other party. Thus, the plaintiff's issuance of the tax invoice to the plaintiff, which is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)