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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of value-added tax on August 6, 2012 by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 6, 2012 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit incorporated association established on March 11, 2004 for the purpose of taking charge of duties concerning industry-academic cooperation at AANA pursuant to the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation Act (hereinafter “Industrial-Academic Cooperation Act”).

B. The Plaintiff did not file a value-added tax return on KRW 6,648,884,00,000 in total of supply value received in the course of performing the maritime traffic safety diagnosis services, etc. (hereinafter “instant services”) from each ordering entity during the value-added tax period from 205 to 2011.

C. From April 12, 2012 to May 31, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not file a value-added tax return on the instant service, and issued a first disposition to the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012, under Article 12(1)17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Value-Added Tax Act”) and Article 37(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree”).

D. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On April 16, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax amount as not imposing additional tax and to dismiss the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims.

E. Accordingly, on May 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of correction that deducts each amount in the “additional Tax” column in the “Additional Tax” column in the “Additional Tax” column in the original disposition from the amount of the “value-added Tax” column and notified the Plaintiff of the decision (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Items exempt from value-added tax

A) Under the statutory interpretation, all research services provided by the Plaintiff as a proper objective business are exempted from the value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1)17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and there is no limitation that it is a new academic or technological development related to Article 12(1)14 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

B) Also, among the instant services, the entry of the list of the tax exemption claim in the attached Table 3 is exempt from value-added tax as a research service to examine the feasibility of the research service to develop a new academic or technical development or the results of the existing scientific research or technical research and to revise

2) Violation of the principle of good faith

The Ministry of Finance and Economy has interpreted that the value-added tax is exempted for all research services provided by the industry-academic cooperation foundation to its own proper objective business and expressed public opinions, the plaintiff believed the plaintiff and did not collect the value-added tax from the project owner, and the tax authorities have closed the investigation by judging that it is subject to value-added tax exemption even in the case of the Korea Maritime University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation that carries out the services such as the plaintiff, and there is no cause attributable to the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff to believe the interpretation of the tax authorities.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 4 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The former Act on the Safety of Sea Traffic (amended by Act No. 9873 of Dec. 29, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Gu").

According to Article 2 subparagraph 38 and Article 6-2 of the Maritime Traffic Act, the maritime traffic safety diagnosis is specialized in the investigation, measurement and assessment of risks to navigation safety that may arise from a project affecting the safety of marine traffic, such as the designation or change of a water zone and the development and redevelopment of a port or wharf. A business operator who intends to implement a project subject to diagnosis shall request a diagnosis agent equipped with technology and human resources to professionally investigate, measure and assess risks to navigation safety due to a project subject to diagnosis prior to the approval and permission decision of the project plan, and the diagnosis agent shall evaluate the status of traffic, the current status measurement of marine traffic, the appropriateness assessment of the marine traffic system, and the measures for the safety of marine traffic, etc. in detail to estimate in advance what impact the project subject to diagnosis will affect the ship traffic in the future. The detailed contents are as follows.

Maritime Transportation

Current status surveys

⇨

Maritime Transportation

Measurement of Current Status

⇨

Marine Transportation System

Evaluation of Appropriateness

⇨

Maritime Transportation

Safety Measures

- Project outlines

- Design Standards

- Natural environment

- Survey of the conditions of navigation

-marine traffic surveys;

- maritime traffic characteristics diagnosis

-Analysis of opinions of sea area users ;

-Survey of sea traffic congestion;

- examination of current marine traffic

- Evaluation of stability of traffic;

-Evaluation of Contaccy;

- Gyeyang Safety Evaluation

-assessment of marine traffic;

- Comprehensive evaluation

- Expert opinions

- needed alternatives

Assessment items in the case

- Safety Measures

2) The instant service was contracted by each ordering authority for services, such as marine traffic safety diagnosis, as indicated in the attached Form 2 service performance record. The main contents of the instant service were to analyze the natural environment (flord, tidal wave, etc.) and the current status of marine traffic at the place where the business entity intends to implement the instant service, and then to derive the volume of marine traffic and the degree of congestion through the ship operation with the ship operation operation, thereby presenting an alternative for the assessment of the appropriateness of the maritime traffic system caused by the relevant project or for

3) The 2000 Formula aims to assess the risk in advance through the 2000 Formula 1 and to prepare the countermeasures by inserting the actual ship, port, harbor, etc. into the program. The 2000 Formula 100 aims to derive results according to the standardized standards, such as automatically setting and implementing the conditions, if a ship, port, natural environment, etc. is entered into the prepared program.

4) Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance and Economy (the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 2006, Nov. 29, 2006) interpreted that the value-added tax is exempted for all research services provided by an industry-academic cooperation foundation as its own objective business rather than for the academic and technical research services under Article 11-3(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act. However, the National Tax Service concluded that traffic safety diagnosis services for the defendant's advice on whether to exempt the value-added tax are provided by simply applying or using the research results of science and technology, and that traffic safety diagnosis services for the defendant's advice on whether to exempt the value-added tax are not exempted for the same interpretation (law-1356, Oct. 14, 2011).

5) Korea* Consulting Co., Ltd. registered as a marine traffic safety diagnosis agent as a private company

It is registered as a value-added taxable person.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, and 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the value-added tax is exempted

A) Article 12(1)16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), Article 37 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”), the language and purport of the provisions, and the structure of the relevant provisions, especially Article 12(1)13 of the Act, Article 35 subparag. 2(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 11-3(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 12 of Apr. 22, 2008), it is reasonable to consider that the new technical research or service is not included in the scope of “a new scientific research or service organization’s new technical research or service regulations such as research or service regulations.”

B) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff is the 2000 Formula 100, taking full account of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by adding the facts of the recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings to

Since the service of this case is deemed to be a new theory, method, method, official method, etc. to develop a new science or technology exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12 (1) 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, or a research service to review the validity of the results of the existing scientific research or technology research and to revise and supplement the contents thereof, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The legislative intent of Article 12(1)17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 37 subparag. 1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which exempted the value-added tax on the “research services provided by a scientific research organization or an industry-academic cooperation foundation,” appears to be aimed at reducing tax burden by encouraging research and development by a scientific research organization or an industry-academic cooperation foundation. If an industry-academic cooperation foundation engages in profit-making activities through a service that applies the previous research findings, if the value-added tax is exempted, it is reasonable to interpret Article 12(1)14 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 35 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 11-3(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 355 of Jun. 28, 2013).

(2) The instant services are most intended for a marine traffic safety diagnosis, and after analyzing the natural environment (fence, tidal wave, etc.) and the current status of marine traffic in the place where a business operator intends to implement the instant services, it is possible to draw the volume of marine traffic, congested level, etc. using a vessel operation mode.

The main purpose of this study is to provide surveys on the current status of marine transportation, measurement of the current status of marine transportation, assessment of the appropriateness of the marine transportation system, and measures for the safety of marine traffic. The plaintiff has used a vessel operation with automatic conditions established when the ship, port, natural environment, etc. is entered in the program prepared in advance to derive the results of the service in this case. This is the service that applies or uses the existing academic research or technical research results.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that the services listed in the separate sheet 3, among the instant services, are research services for reviewing, correcting and supplementing the feasibility of new theories or existing studies. However, even according to the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 through 15 (including the provisional number), the above services are deemed to have provided services required by the ordering person by applying or using the existing academic research or technical research, marine traffic safety diagnosis techniques, ship beopia, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff did not submit any evidentiary material regarding the services listed in the separate sheet 6, 7, 10, and 11 as indicated in the separate sheet 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11. Therefore, unlike other services, the above services cannot be deemed to be research services for reviewing, correcting, and supplementing the feasibility of new theories or existing research.

2) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of the tax authorities in tax and legal relations, the tax authorities should name the public opinion list that is the object of trust to taxpayers, the tax authorities should not have any reason to return to taxpayers to trust that the name of the tax authorities is justifiable, and the taxpayer must act in trust to what is the name of the opinion list, and the tax authorities should make a disposition against the above opinion list to infringe on the taxpayer's interest. If the expression of intent by the tax authorities is merely a general theoretical opinion list, the application of the above principle is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du5203, Apr. 24, 2001; 2007Du19447, Apr. 29, 2010).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the interpretation of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (the No. 2006. Nov. 29, 2006. the No. 2006. the No. 265 of the Value-Added Tax Act) merely expressed a general theoretical view on the fact that the research service proceeds supplied by the industry-academic cooperation foundation related to Article 37.1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act are exempt from the value-added tax. The Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff after investigating the Plaintiff, based on the fact that the pertinent service is not subject to the tax exemption, and that the tax authorities have closed the investigation with the content that it is subject to value-added tax exemption to the BB Maritime University Industry Cooperation Foundation, or that the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of good faith.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.