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

A. The Plaintiff is an enterpriser who provides educational services under the mutual name of XX Educational Development Institute.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a business agreement with AA University, BB University,CC University, D University, and EE University, and each of the above universities did not report and pay value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period on the basis of the provision of online video lectures to students with part-time enrollments at each of the above universities by means of distance provision of online video lectures. < Amended by Act No. 2007, Jan. 2008; Act No. 6000, Feb. 2008; Act No. 0000, Jan. 2009; Act No. 2000, Feb. 2009; Act No. 2000, Feb. 2, 2009 (hereinafter “instant educational services”).

C. The Defendant issued 12(1)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043 of Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) with 00 won of value-added tax for 1 December 2008, 200 won of 200 won of value-added tax for 200 won of 200 won of 209, 200 won of value-added tax for 200 won of 209, 200 won of value-added tax for 20 years of 209, 200 won of value-added tax for 20 years of 200, 200 won of 200.

D. On June 3, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2. However, on September 19, 201, the Plaintiff received a decision to dismiss the instant Disposition and a decision to dismiss the instant Disposition No. 2. On March 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant Disposition No. 3, but was dismissed on May 23, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the business of part-time teaching operation with the OO Infant Care Teachers Training Center, YY Education Center, and △△ Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Cooperative”), and determined that the instant educational services are eligible for exemption from value-added tax, and the Tax Tribunal also determined to be eligible for exemption from value-added tax on the above educational services provided by the Cooperative. Unlike the Cooperative, the Plaintiff did not report the remote lifelong educational facilities to the competent Office of Education under the Lifelong Education Act, and the educational services provided by the Plaintiff are identical to the educational services provided by the Cooperative. Accordingly, the instant educational services are subject to exemption from value-added tax under the substance over form principle. Accordingly, the instant disposition that deemed that the instant educational services are not subject to exemption from value-added tax, and even if not, it should be revoked as it is unlawful since the instant disposition No. 2 and 3 of this case, excluding the instant disposition that caused disputes, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(i) a VAT exemption system for educational services;

The basic purpose of education is to cultivate people's character completion and ability to make independent living. On the other hand, education needs to be protected as a tax exemption for the service cost because it requires a lot of government support from the Social Development Institute. On the other hand, education is various kinds of education, the form, name and content of educational institution, and the corresponding government's guidance and supervision are required.

Accordingly, Article 12 (1) 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the education service provided by the Presidential Decree among the education service shall be exempt, not all the educational service, and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the education service provided by the government is exempt from taxation, i.e., the education service provided by the government’s instruction and supervision, i., schools, private teaching institutes, training institutes, training institutes, teaching institutes, and other non-profit organizations. Meanwhile, the purport of allowing the government to obtain permission or authorization lies in the government’s direction and supervision. Thus, even if the government did not have formal permission or authorization, the education service provided by the relevant educational institution is included within the scope of the government’s direction and supervision by the government’s report or registration. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the education service provided by the relevant educational institution is also included in tax-exempt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 198Nu138, Apr. 19, 198).

2) Determination as to whether the instant educational service is exempt from value-added tax

According to Article 12 (1) 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, a private teaching institute permitted or authorized by the Government provides that the teaching of knowledge, skills, etc. to students shall be exempted from value-added tax on the ground that such teaching is an educational service. As seen earlier, "Government's permission or authorization" shall also include a case of "registration or report to the competent authority according to the Lifelong Education Act". Article 33 (1) of the former Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 10915, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "any person may conduct lifelong education by providing distance education to a specific or unspecified number of unspecified persons or providing various information, etc." Paragraph (2) provides that "where it is intended to do so after receiving tuition fees to many unspecified persons pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall be reported to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2067, Feb. 15, 2015, 201).

The Act provides that any person shall be the subject of such contract.

However, the claimant did not report the remote lifelong education facilities to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology pursuant to Article 33(2) of the former Lifelong Education Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, since the education facilities operated by the plaintiff are not included within the scope of command and supervision by the report to the competent administrative agency, it is reasonable to deem that the education services provided by the plaintiff are not included in the subject of tax exemption (the plaintiff asserts that the education services in this case are identical to the contents of the education services provided by the cooperative in this case, and thus, the education services in this case are subject to tax exemption under the principle of substantial taxation. However, since the cooperative in this case reported the remote lifelong education facilities to the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development in accordance with the Lifelong Education Act, it cannot be deemed the same as that of the plaintiff, in light of the purport of the VAT exemption system for the education services as seen above, the plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the education service provided by the plaintiff is subject to value-added tax exemption is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed on the grounds that all of them are without merit.