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

A. On June 17, 200, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building of 5th and 2nd underground floors (hereinafter “instant international juvenile center”) on the land of 801 m3, Dong-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 1,985 m2, on the ground of 801 m2, the 3 to 5th among which the 2nd and 5th youth hostel was used as the office of the Plaintiff and member organizations, the 1st and upper floors, the 1st and upper floors as the swimming pool, the 2nd and upper floors as the swimming pool, the 1st, the 2nd class, and the early childhood education center. On October 26, 2005, the instant international juvenile center was registered to the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under Article 13(1) of the former Juvenile Activity Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8349, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “Juvenile Activity Promotion Act”).

B. When the Plaintiff initially reported value-added tax for the first period of 2007, the Plaintiff did not report tuition fees (hereinafter “tuition fees”) received from students other than juveniles using swimming pool, ebbbin, health center, and gymnasium (hereinafter “instant sports facilities”) within the instant international juvenile center, but filed a revised report to raise the tax base from KRW 810,245,312 to KRW 1,164,294,038, including this, on June 16, 2008.

C. On October 28, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the portion of the tuition fees of this case included at the time of the above revised return is subject to value-added tax exemption, and filed a claim for rectification of value-added tax requesting the refund of value-added tax amounting to KRW 24,358,694 for the portion of the tuition fees of this case, but the Defendant rejected the claim on December 4, 2008.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 33 of the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act, in the case of a juvenile training facility registered under Article 13 (1) of the same Act, it is deemed that a report on a sports facility business under Article 22 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 8349 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "sports facility Act") has been filed. Thus, the plaintiff is a sports facility business entity as prescribed by the Sports Facilities Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff constitutes "other non-profit organizations" under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the education service provided by the plaintiff to students other than juveniles is also an education service provided by the "other non-profit organizations" under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act,

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 12 (1) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act require "government's permission or authorization as a requirement for educational services subject to tax exemption" refers to a non-profit organization established with permission or authorization under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons as well as all other non-profit organizations established with permission or authorization under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23255, Jun. 12, 2008).

According to these legal principles, we examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes a sports facility business entity under the Sports Facilities Act, which can be exempted from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

In cases where a law that provides for matters concerning the principal authorization and permission provides for the legal fiction that a principal authorization and permission has been obtained pursuant to other Acts, it shall be deemed that a principal authorization and permission has been obtained pursuant to other Acts, and it does not apply to all the provisions of other Acts premised on the fact that authorization and permission has been obtained by other Acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da19715, Jul. 22, 2004).

In the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act, the facility standards and safety standards concerning juvenile training facilities are separately determined, and when permission and registration of juvenile training facilities are granted, the relevant facilities shall be examined. In the process, whether sports facilities installed in the relevant juvenile training facilities meet the standards prescribed in the snow law at the time of sports can be actually examined. In order to simplify administrative procedures, the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act provides that a report under the Sports Facilities Act shall be deemed to be filed at the time of registration of a juvenile training facility.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff is deemed to have filed a report under the Sports Facilities Act while registering the instant international sports center as a juvenile training facility, the Plaintiff does not thereby acquire the status of the sports facility operator as prescribed by the Sports Facilities Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's sports facility business as prescribed by the Sports Facilities Act cannot be deemed as a "school, private teaching institute, training institute, training institute, training institute, or other non-profit organization permitted or authorized by the government under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act." Thus, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed without reason.