부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
The main point of the argument is that the Plaintiff is exempt from value-added tax even between the instant subsidiary and the Plaintiff, as the instant subsidiary provided the education services directly to the students, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the role of the replacement in the middle.
Judgment
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the agreement between the Plaintiff and the instant subsidiary as indicated in the evidence No. 3 and the purport of Gap evidence No. 7-1 and Gap evidence No. 10 as a whole and the purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff provides students with step-by-step comprehensive English education services, such as rax test and consultation, wedding, wedding, eating, cutting-by-traps, and class, which are provided by one instructor and two learning managers through the learning operation system consisting of one instructor and two learning managers. The amount and calculation method of the Plaintiff’s fees paid to the instant subsidiary and the tuition fees from the students, are different in accordance with the contents and methods of the Plaintiff’s provision of the services. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view that only the above telephone class is separately removed, and the Plaintiff simply delivers the services provided by the instant subsidiary to the students.
Therefore, the other party to the service of the instant subsidiary cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s student, and the value-added tax is exempted at the stage of directly providing educational services to the Plaintiff. Thus, the provision of services to the Plaintiff by the instant subsidiary cannot be deemed as a tax-free object.
School juristic persons, enterprises, government agencies, etc. invoked by the Plaintiff.