Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap54621 ( October 28, 2015)

tax invoices issued after a taxable object shall not be included in the input tax deduction;

The import tax invoice issued after the taxable period as the actual importer confirms as the plaintiff by customs investigation is not subject to input tax deduction.

Article 35 (Import Tax Invoice)

2015Nu59534 Claim for refund of value-added tax

AAA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap54261 decided August 28, 2015

April 26, 2016

May 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall revoke the plaintiff's added value such as the attached value list.

A total of three OO members shall be refunded.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "No. 2. 18. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 16." and "No. 3. 13. 201" are as follows; "No. 16. 4. 4. 4." and "No. 2. 4. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 2. 2. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 2.... 2. 2. of the judgment" are as follows. The plaintiff's assertion from May 16, 2016 to 3. 6. 10 . . 2. 3. .. 3. .... 4. ... .... ... .... .... .... ..... ........ 2 of the judgment to ........... 3 . . ... . ...... ............. . . .... . . . . ........ ............. ................. .

2. Parts in height:

Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) is a tax invoice issued by the head of Incheon Customs Office to the Plaintiff as a genuine importer by changing the import entity. The instant import tax invoice does not apply to the head of a customs office, who is not a taxpayer. The instant import tax invoice does not contain any necessary entries differently from the facts, and constitutes an amended import tax invoice, which is deemed as the input tax deduction data. However, the Plaintiff was not entitled to such deduction because it was not issued a tax invoice identical to the instant import tax invoice in the first taxable period, and thus, the Defendant is liable

3. The addition;

A. Sub-section 4 below:

In addition, the import tax invoice of this case is not a revised import tax invoice issued pursuant to the proviso of Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 59 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, but a tax invoice or an import tax invoice issued pursuant to the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is not a tax invoice or an import tax invoice, and there is no data to deem that there was a practical practice regarding the document issued under the name of "import tax invoice

B. The following part of face No. 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act:

Article 59 (Grounds and Procedures for Issuance of Revised Tax Invoice)

(1) A revised tax invoice referred to in the latter part of Article 16 (1) of the Act may be issued in accordance with the following grounds and procedures:

5. Where necessary entries, etc. are erroneously entered: To write a tax invoice in red or by issuing a tag in red as stated in the first issued tax invoice, and to issue tax invoices after modification shall be written in black: Provided, That in any of the following cases, where the tax invoice is issued after modification, it shall be excluded herefrom:

(a) Where it has received a notice of tax investigation;

(b) Where a tax official starts a local business trip or confirmation work to collect taxation data or handle civil petitions;

(c) Where a notice of explanation of taxation data is received from the head of a tax office;

(d) Other cases similar to those referred to in items (a) through (c) where it is deemed that the correction has become known in advance.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.