2. On November 1, 2007, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of 2,778,910 won for the second term of 205 against the Plaintiff, value-added tax of 5,882,660 won for the first term of 2006, and value-added tax of 21,665,670 won for the second term of 206 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. From July 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) provided an online lecture with an English education program for children and a V-HNE for children by combining telephone education with the Internet lecture from July 2005; (b) provided an English education program for children; (c) provided an education program for February 310, 568, 1410; (d) 64,7109,279, 279; (c) 238,348,122 English education service for February 2006, 2006; (d) provided an education program for children; (e) provided an education program for children; and (e) provided an education program for 10,568,271,29,207; and (e) provided an education program for 30,50,196,207,201,710,97,216,297,201,219,710,297,2015,207

C. On May 6, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the amount of tax shall be corrected on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay the value-added tax does not constitute an educational service subject to exemption under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay the value-added tax was due to a justifiable cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, the Tax Tribunal made a decision that the amount of tax shall be corrected for the second period of 2005 after deducting the additional tax (hereinafter the above, the amount of tax shall be KRW 2,778,910, Value-Added Tax 5,82,60, Value-Added Tax 5,82,60, Value-Added Tax 5,65,670, Value-Added Tax 21, 665, and 670 for the second period of 206. Each of the above amounts of tax shall be less than KRW 10,000, 13) evidence 1 through 3, 1000

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

“(1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s education service of this case was reported as a remote lifelong education facility to the head of the office of education of the office of education of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, which is the competent authority, on the following grounds: (a) the education service by telephone constitutes a “educational service permitted or authorized by the government as provided in Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act; and (b) the education service of this case constitutes a “educational service permitted or authorized by the government as provided in Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; and (c) there is no legal basis to deem that a foreign instructor is excluded from the subject of the report as provided in Article 2(2) of the Lifelong Education Act.” (b) Even if the education service of this case is subject to the object of taxation, the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) basic facts;

(1) On May 12, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the remote lifelong education facility to the head of the office of education of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, which is the competent authority. The content of the report is to conduct English education for adults under the name of the Pour Lifelong Education Institute (www.e. c. c. km). The Plaintiff attached to the report on the above remote lifelong education facility, the rules on the operation of the Pour Lifelong Education Institute, location map, facility placement plan, installation plan, temporary general meeting minutes, special general meeting minutes, the articles of incorporation, the server possession status of the server for operating the remote lifelong education facility, the server hosting contract, the list of officers and employees, and the list of domestic instructors who will take charge of education, and issued the certificate of report on the remote education facility to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706, May 18, 2005>

"(2) 또한 원고는 2005. 8. 23. 서울특별시 강남교육청 교육장에게 원격평생교육시설 신고서를 제출하였는데, 민XX튜터싸이버평생교육원(www.uXXtor.co.kr)이라는 명칭으로 어린이를 대상으로 하는U-TUTOR' 영어교육을 실시하는 것을 그 내용으로 하였다. 원고는 위 원격평생교육시설 신고서에서 부속서류로 민XX튜터싸이버평생교육원 운영규칙, 위치도, 시설배치도, 평생교육사 배치 계획서, 임시주주총회의사록, 정관, 법인 등기부등본, 임대차계약서, 서버 호스팅 이용계약서, 임직원 명단, 교육을 담당할 국내 강사명단 및 이력서 사본을 첨부하였고, 서울특별시 강남교육청 교육장은 이를 심사한 후 2005. 8. 29. 원고에게 원격교육평생교육시설신고증을 교부하였다.",(3) 다만, 원고는 서울특별시 강남교육청 교육장에게 위와 같이 신고함에 있어 실제로 전화영어 교육을 실시할 외국인 강사 명단은 그 명단이 확정되지 않는 등 사유로 첨부하지 않았다.

On the other hand, the above certificates of report issued by the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education to the plaintiff shall comply with the relevant rules and operate the lifelong educational establishment in accordance with the operation rules, and when the above names and locations of the lifelong educational establishment are changed or the above lifelong educational establishment is to be closed, it was added to the competent office of education in advance.

(4) In order to carry out the instant educational services, the Plaintiff entered into a telephone English supply contract with ○○ Education Co., Ltd. and △△△△ Co., Ltd., and its main contents are as follows (this paragraph referred to as “A”, “○○ Education Co., Ltd.”, and “△△△”).

【Main Contents of the Contract】

(5) The Plaintiff reported the instant educational services to the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education as a remote lifelong educational facility and received a certificate of report, and questioning as to whether it violates the Lifelong Education Act to provide students with learning guidance by posting telephone during the distance education course.

On July 28, 2008, the head of the district office of education of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education responded to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “If a distance-education-type lifelong educational establishment through telephone (including Internet telephone) receives tuition fees and intends to provide education on knowledge, techniques, skills, and arts to not less than 10 unspecified students according to the curriculum of not less than 30 hours, it shall be subject to reporting under Article 22(2) of the Lifelong Education Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.” However, the head of the district office of education responded to the Plaintiff on July 28, 2008: “The employment of foreign natives as instructors of a distance-based lifelong educational establishment is domestic law; the mutual opening of educational services with foreign countries; the qualification problem of instructors; the equity problem with other lifelong educational facilities; the protection

(6) On February 3, 2009, the Tax Tribunal reported to the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education the establishment and operation of private teaching institutes under the Lifelong Education Act in addition to the registration of private teaching institutes under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons. The reported remote lifelong education facilities provided English lessons using telephones, and provided guidance to students using foreign lecturers living in the Philippines at the time of teaching. As such, the Plaintiff asked whether the Plaintiff provided English lessons using telephones to nationals via foreign lecturers residing abroad is a remote lifelong education under the Lifelong Education Act.

(7) Accordingly, the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education requested the Minister of Education, Science and Technology to present his opinion on the above question, and on March 25, 2009, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology responded as follows.

(1) If 10 or more persons receive learning fees from many and unspecified persons through distance education utilizing information and communications technology, such as video lectures, Internet lectures, and telephones, and if they perform education concerning knowledge, techniques, skills, and arts for at least 30 hours according to a certain teaching course, they shall report it to the competent authorities in a remote-type lifelong education facility pursuant to Article 33 of the Lifelong Education Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

② According to the Korea-U.S. FTA (FTA. 30, Jun. 30, 2007) and the Korea-ASEAN FTA (FTA. 21, 2007), adult education service sector allows the opening of education among nations only when it is recognized as academic achievement or a degree is not granted, but when it provides education to adults.

③ Meanwhile, Article 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2006-30, Mar. 23, 2006) did not allow foreign investment in remote education-type lifelong educational establishments. However, under the Korea-U.S. FTA agreement (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2007, Jun. 30, 2007) and the Korea-ASEAN FTA agreement (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2007, Nov. 21, 2007), the "Rules on Foreign Investment and Technology Inducement" was amended to make it possible for foreign investment in lifelong educational establishments (including remote-type lifelong educational establishments).

④ Therefore, as of March 25, 2009, it is possible for foreigners residing overseas to provide services in a remote manner to Korean nationals because the opening of adult education services is permitted between the parties to the agreement pursuant to the Korea-US FTA (FTA) and the Korea‐ASEAN FTA (FTA No. 2007, Nov. 21, 2007) and the Korea‐ASEAN FTA (FTA No. 2008-166, Nov. 18, 2008) as of March 25, 2009. However, even in this case, it is only possible for foreigners residing overseas to recognize academic achievement or grant academic degrees, and only for adults who are not elementary, middle and high school students.

(8) The Defendant did not recognize that the instant education service was conducted from the second to the second taxable period of the Value-Added Tax in 2005, which was the previous 2006, on the premise that it was possible after November 18, 2008, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy publicly notified No. 2008-166 to educate the Plaintiff in English by hiring an instructor of the Philippines residing in the Republic of Korea according to such reply by the competent authorities.

(9) Since November 18, 2008, the Defendant decided that the instant educational services are exempt from value-added tax, which falls under Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and does not impose value-added tax on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 2 through 10; Eul evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 4 to 14; Eul evidence 15-1, 2, Eul evidence 18 through 22; the purport of the whole pleadings;

D. Determination

(1) The exemption system of value-added tax for educational services;

(a) A value-added tax exemption system

In principle, value-added tax is imposed on all goods and services, but the Value-Added Tax Act lists transactions subject to tax exemption in order to alleviate the reverse burden of consumption tax or achieve policy objectives for society, culture and public interest as an exception to this principle. The effect of value-added tax exemption is to exempt the value-added tax only on the added value created at the stage of the relevant tax-exempt business operator, and to reduce the burden of value-added tax on the consumers who receive goods and services from the said tax-exempt business operator. Thus, the purpose of the tax-exempt system is to reduce the burden of value-added tax

(b) VAT exemption on educational services;

The purpose of education is to develop people’s character completion and abilities for independent living. The purpose of education is to protect the service cost concerned as tax-free by requiring a large number of government support from the Social Development Institute. On the other hand, education is a variety of kinds of provisions in the relevant laws and regulations, and the form, name and content of education institutions are various, and the corresponding government’s guidance and supervision are required accordingly. The Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that it shall not be subject to all education services, but those prescribed by Presidential Decree among education services, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides education services subject to the government’s instruction and supervision.

(c) the concept of "permission or authorization by the Government";

Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the government's permission or authorization" may be interpreted as requiring "the government's permission or authorization". However, since the purport of allowing the government's permission or authorization is that the government's permission or authorization shall be placed under the government's direction and supervision, if the relevant educational institution is included within the scope of direction and supervision by the competent authorities, etc. without formal permission or authorization, it shall be deemed that the education service provided by the relevant educational institution is included in tax-free tax-free tax-free tax-free tax-related Acts, since the objective of an action under the concept of government's permission or authorization has been achieved, since the pertinent educational institution's permission or authorization has been achieved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu391, Sept. 10, 1985).

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

According to Article 12 (1) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, a private teaching institute permitted or authorized by the Government provides education services to teach students, etc. with knowledge and skills as an educational service. As seen above, "government's permission or authorization" should be viewed as including the case of "registration or report to the competent authority" under the Lifelong Education Act.

원고는 이 사건 교육용역인 민XX싸이버평생교육원(www.eXXX.co.kr), 민XX튜터싸이버평생교육원(www.uXXtor.co.kr)에 대하여 평생교육법 제22조, 평생교육법 시행령 제26조에서 정한 원격평생교육시설로 신고하였으므로, 이 사건 교육용역은 '주무 관청에 신고한 원격평생교육시설에서의 교육'에 해당되어 면세 대상에 해당한다고 주장함에 대하여, 피고는 원고가 이 사건 교육용역을 신고하면서 외국인 강사에 관하여는 신고하지 않았으므로 이 사건 교육용역은 '주무관청에의 등록 또는 신고'한 경우에 해당하지 않는다고 주장한다.

Article 22 (1) of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8676 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that "any person may conduct lifelong education, such as providing distance education to many and unspecified persons or providing them with a variety of information through the information and communication media" (Article 22 (1) of the Lifelong Education Act provides that "in case of paragraph (1), where he intends to do so after receiving tuition fees from many and unspecified persons, he shall report it to the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development as prescribed by Presidential Decree," and accordingly, Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20607 of Feb. 14, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a remote education-type lifelong educational establishment that shall report it to the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development pursuant to the former part of Article 22 (2) of the Act shall be a facility that provides ten or more unspecified learners with learning fees in excess of 30 hours."

6) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff reported the instant educational services that combines telephone education to the head of the office of education, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education on May 2005 and August 205. The Superintendent of the Office of Education, which is the competent authority, also issued a certificate of report to the Plaintiff after examining the Plaintiff’s report. ② The Plaintiff’s report on the remote lifelong education facilities and the document required under Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act appears to be faithfully reported on the instant educational services, including the server ownership for operating the remote lifelong education facilities, server title 2, and so on. 3) The Plaintiff’s report on the instant educational services is not only required by the 1st radio communication equipment and facilities under the Enforcement Decree of the Act, but also by using the 2nd radio communication equipment and facilities, but also by using the 1st radio communication equipment and facilities that are not subject to the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the report.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) The defendant first asserts that "1:1 English lessons through telephone" are provided by one instructor via telephone to a specific person, and that it cannot be viewed as subject to a report as stipulated by the Lifelong Education Act, which covers many unspecified persons as "specific persons" because it constitutes distance education at the time of "specific persons".

In light of the fact that a person who provides educational services receives tuition fees and provides educational services is specified as a specific person at the time that the person who provides educational services receives tuition fees, the issue of whether the person is a "education for a specific student" under Article 22 (2) of the Lifelong Education Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act shall be classified according to the "specific" and "unspecifics" of the subject of recruitment in the course of recruiting the subject of education. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit (the recent English education method is spreading, and if the above provision is interpreted in accordance with the defendant's assertion, it is inappropriate in that both it is excluded from the subject of regulation of the Lifelong Education Act).

(B) In addition, the Defendant sent a reply to the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, the head of the District Education Office of Gangnam-gu Office of Education, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, to employ the language languages of the Philippines residing in the Philippines as instructors and educate them in English by telephone after November 18, 2008. Since the instant educational services were educated from February 2, 2005 to February 2006, the instant educational services were not subject to permission or authorization by the superintendent of the Office of Education of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education.

"살피건대, 원고가 원격 교육(인터넷 교육)에 대하여 별도로 서울특별시 강남교육청 교육감에게 'U-PHONE' 영어교육과 관련하여 민XX싸이버평생교육원(www.eXXX.co.kr)이라는 명칭으로,U-TUTOR' 영어교육과 관련하여 민XX튜터싸이버평생교육원(www.uXXtor.co.kr)이라는 명칭으로 평생교육법 시행령 제27조 등에 의하여 각 원격 평생교육시설 신고를 하여 2005. 5. 18.과 2005. 8. 29. 각 신고증을 교부받은 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 여기에 더하여 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면 이 사건 교육용역을 허가 또는 인가받은 교육용역이 아니라고 할 수 없으므로 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.", "① 외국인투자촉진법 제4조 제3항 및 외국인투자촉진법 시행령 제5조 제1항의 규정에 근거한 산업자원부 고시 제2006-30호(2006. 3. 23. 시행)외국인투자 및 기술 도입에 관한 규정'에 의하면 원격교육형태의 평생교육시설에 대해서는 외국인 투자를 허용하고 있지 않았으나, 지식경제부 고시 제2008-166호(2008. 11. 18. 시행)는 한-미 FTA 협정 및 한-아세안 FTA 협정을 토대로 학력을 인정하거나 학위를 수여할 목적이 아닌 성인 대상의 평생교육시설(원격형태의 평생교육시설 포함)에 대해서도 외국인 투자가 가능하도록외국인 투자 및 기술도입에 관한 규정'을 수정 고시한 사실은 인정된다.", "② 그러나외국인 투자 및 기술도입'이라는 것은 외국인이 자본 또는 현물을 투자 및 출자하거나 진보성 내지 신규성이 있는 고도의 기술을 외국인(법인 포함)으로부터 도입하는 경우에 해당하는데, 원고는 주식회사 ○○교육 및 주식회사 ○○교육이 필리핀에 설립한 주식회사 △△와 사이에 원고가 필요로 하는 전화영어 서비스를 공급받는 내용의 계약을 체결한 것에 불과하여 위에서 보는외국인 투자 및 기술 도입'에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다.",③ 더욱이 원고가 체결한 계약서의 내용을 검토하여 보더라도 이는 단순한 전화 영어 서비스 공급계약으로서 외국인 투자를 받는다고 보기도 어려울 뿐만 아니라 원고는 위 회사로부터 전화영어 서비스를 제공받은 대가로 수강시간 당 확정된 이용료를 지급하기로 약정한 것에 불과하다고 보인다.

④ In light of the fact that the pertinent educational service was recognized by the competent authority as a lifelong educational establishment and duly reported it in accordance with the Lifelong Education Act, and there is no limitation on prohibiting foreigners from using them as an instructor in the Lifelong Education Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s status as a lifelong educational establishment is denied solely on the ground that the Plaintiff uses

⑤ According to the consistent reasoning of taxation argument asserted by the Defendant, the value-added tax may be exempted on the English language education for adults even after November 18, 2008. However, the value-added tax should be imposed on the English education for children. However, the Defendant itself is exempt from all of the value-added tax on the instant education services since November 18, 2008.

① Even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, erred by omitting the list of foreign instructors at the time of reporting the instant educational services, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology or the Superintendent of an Office of Education, Science and Technology, or the Superintendent of an Office of Education, inasmuch as it falls under the case of obtaining authorization, making registration, or reporting by false or other unlawful means under Article 42 subparag. 1 of the Lifelong Education Act, is separate from revoking the establishment of the relevant facilities. Such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the instant educational services reported by the Plaintiff are not exempt from tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu391, Sept

Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments. The Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.