[2] The case holding that research and distribution services provided by the branch office of the Korean Association shall not be eligible for tax exemption under Article 12 (1) 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 37 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

[3] Whether the taxing authority's words and actions or public opinions suggest that the taxing authority does not impose value-added tax when it issues a business registration certificate for the duty payer who is exempted from value-added tax or gives a unique number (negative)

[2] In a case where the branch offices of the Korea Family Association provided research and distribution services to associate members who are general public and received membership fees, teaching materials, education expenses, etc. in return, the case holding that the supply of the above services does not constitute tax exemption under Article 12 (1) 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 37 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18740 of March 18, 2005) on the grounds that the above association cannot be deemed to have provided the above services for religion, charity, academic purpose, relief, or other public interest, or for its own business purpose

[3] The legislative purpose of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is to identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the taxation data, and this is to be established by filing a report of business fact with the head of the competent tax office by filing a business registration application. The issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration with the head of the competent tax office, and even if the tax office issued the certificate of business registration for the taxpayer, it cannot be deemed as an expression or a public opinion suggesting that no value-added tax shall be imposed on the business operated by the taxpayer. It is merely an act of giving a unique number under Article 8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18740 of March 18, 2005) to efficiently handle taxation

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18740, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) stipulate “educational services that teach students, etc. with knowledge, techniques, etc. in schools, private teaching institutes, teaching institutes, training institutes, teaching institutes, and other non-profit organizations permitted or authorized by the Government, and youth training facilities under the Framework Act on Juveniles” as tax-free educational services. As such, the requirement for “government’s permission or authorization” as the requirement for such educational services refers to the government’s instruction and supervision of the relevant schools or private teaching institutes, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “other non-profit organizations” as prescribed by Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree means all kinds of educational facilities or non-profit organizations established with the government’s permission or authorization for establishment and operation of private teaching institutes under the Act on the Establishment and Utilization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and determined that the service of this case does not constitute an education service subject to tax exemption unless the plaintiff obtained permission or authorization pursuant to the Education Facilities Act, and the defendants merely constitute the disposition of this case by gathering the service of this case provided by the plaintiff's branch and considering it as taxable subject to tax exemption and the service provided by the plaintiff's principal office is not subject to tax exemption and the service provided by the branch office as taxable subject to tax exemption. In light of the above legal principles, related Acts and subordinate statutes, and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the education service subject to tax exemption, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's branch office provided research and distribution services of the Acts and subordinate statutes and received membership fees, teaching materials, education expenses, etc. in return, the court below held that the service of this case does not constitute the supply of tax-free services under Article 12 (1) 16 of the Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, since it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is an organization for religion, charity, academic purpose, relief, or other public interest, or that the plaintiff provided services for its own business purposes. In light of the records and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 18(3) of the Act on National Taxes apply to the principle of good faith or the practice of non-taxation to consider that the principle of good faith under Article 18(3) is established. In addition, there is objective fact that the tax authority has not imposed taxes on certain matters over a long period of time, and there is an intention that the tax authority does not impose taxes on certain special circumstances with the knowledge that it is possible to impose taxes on the said matter, and such intent must be externally and explicitly indicated, but it must be viewed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike simple omission of taxation, unlike simple omission of taxation. This is a legislative purpose of the Value-Added Tax Act to enable the tax authority to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and secure the taxation data. This is merely a report of business fact and the issuance of the business registration certificate is nothing more than a delivery of a certificate verifying such registration, and even if the tax authority issued the business registration certificate to the taxpayer, it cannot be seen as having expressed its own opinion or opinion to grant the tax authority.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the tax authority's disposition of this case was unlawful as it did not provide any guidance on the payment of value-added tax to the non-party association or the plaintiff, although the tax authority issued a business registration certificate for the non-party association of the same incorporated association (hereinafter "non-party association") or issued a unique number to the branch offices of the Korea Association of the same incorporated association (hereinafter "non-party association") for a long time, and the non-party association has been working for the non-party association with the benefit of value-added tax exemption. The plaintiff's argument of this case is eventually that the non-taxation practice was established for the service of this case, and in light of the records and the above legal principles, it is just and there is no

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)