(a) Purport of Article 22 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act concerning the additional tax on insincerey tax invoice;

(b) Whether the input tax amount for the bona fide business operator who has transacted with the nominal master business operator is deducted;

(c) Legal nature of the tax invoice and its validity at the upper level of the date of its preparation;

A. Article 22(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for an obligation to prepare and deliver a tax invoice accurately stating the necessary matters to the supplier of goods at the time of transaction as provided in the tax-related Acts in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of the tax claim, and if the taxpayer violates it without any justifiable reason, the penalty tax shall be imposed without considering the intention or negligence.

B. In the event that an entrepreneur has confirmed the business registration certificate of the counterpart and received a tax invoice for the transaction, if the other party to the transaction was identified as the name-oriented businessman, etc. through the investigation by the related agency, if the entrepreneur did not know such fact but did not know it, the input tax amount should be deducted in the case where the entrepreneur makes a scheduled and final tax return under the Value-Added Tax Act as it is in fact within the prescribed period.

C. The tax invoice is a documentary evidence to determine value-added tax, and it is ultimately necessary to ensure the truth of the documentary evidence, so even if it is prepared and delivered on the date that does not comply with Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act or Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the input tax amount of the value-added tax shall be deducted when the relevant transactions are confirmed by the entries

(a) Article 22(2)2(b) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 16(1)(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu323 delivered on December 26, 1984, 84Nu502 delivered on June 11, 1985. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu136 delivered on July 10, 1984, 85Nu211 delivered on July 9, 1985, 86Nu75 delivered on March 24, 1987

Attorney Cho Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1194 delivered on November 13, 1987

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

(1) The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff, while continuing to supply other services, etc. to Nonparty 1 and 46 companies, issued a tax invoice on the date after the final transaction date or the delivery date of goods by summing up the two or three transaction items, and supported the Defendant’s disposition imposing 2/100 of the additional tax identifying the tax invoice.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the time of supply is the form of sale under the condition of examining the above transactions, and that the time of supply is the date of preparation of the tax invoice and the assent thereof, but it is nothing more than that of attacking the judgment below on the premise contrary to the facts duly confirmed by the court below.

The purpose of Article 22(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is to impose an obligation on the supplier of goods to prepare and deliver a tax invoice clearly stating the necessary matters at the time of transaction as provided in the tax law in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and impose an additional tax as a sanction without considering the intention if the taxpayer violates it without any justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu323, Dec. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu502, Jun. 11, 1985).

As seen below in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, even though there are parts that are not consistent with the tax invoice received by the person who received the goods in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation, the purpose and intent of the transaction confirmation differs from the time of the deduction of the purchase-value-added tax, and thus, the input tax amount of the value-added tax is deducted and the additional tax is imposed.

The court below's decision is justified in imposing additional tax on the grounds that the date of preparation of the tax invoice is false in the above transaction. The arguments are groundless.

(2) If an entrepreneur confirmed the business registration certificate of the opposite contractual party and received a tax invoice for the transaction, if the opposite contractual party did not know such fact through the investigation by the related agency, but did not know such fact, the input tax amount should be deducted if the entrepreneur makes a scheduled and final return under the Value-Added Tax Act as it is in fact within the prescribed period by the tax invoice delivered by the opposite contractual party. (See Supreme Court Decision 84Nu136 delivered on July 10, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu211 delivered on July 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu775 delivered on March 24, 1987.)

As determined by the court below, if the plaintiff issued the original name from the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 without permission, but the person's name was presented with the non-party 2's business registration certificate which was forged, and the person was supplied with kimchi, etc. with the cand as the time of original judgment without knowing the forged fact, and each time he was issued with the tax invoice under the name of the non-party 2, it constitutes a bona fide trading party. Even if the above non-party 2 did not operate the business in the place of business recorded on the business registration certificate, if the transaction type of the case was the transaction that the plaintiff's business operator or the designated place was decided to take over the goods in accordance with the general practice (the special circumstance to view different from this does not seem to have been recorded in the record), the change of the supplier's place of business does not bring special attention in the above transaction relation. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and it did not err in the misapprehension of the facts of the plaintiff's name.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below agreed to pay the oil price in the transaction with Samsung Petroleum Co., Ltd. on a fifteen-day basis without paying the oil price at the time of delivery, and the company issued a tax invoice on the aggregate of the last day of delivery at the 15th day of the month or the last day of the month in order to pay the price as soon as possible, and issued a tax invoice on the aggregate of the transaction price at the last day before the last day of every month, and in the transaction with the public industry, the above tax invoice is contrary to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, although all of the tax invoices were issued to determine the value-added tax, and the issuance of it at the time of the transaction is to guarantee the truth of the documentary evidence, and even if the transaction was prepared on the date that does not comply with Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act or Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the input tax amount of the relevant value-added tax shall be deducted when the transaction becomes final and conclusive by the entries of the tax invoice.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)