2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. From April 12, 2012 to July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff opened and operated KRW 000 in the name of 00 Dong 00-dong 48-5, Seoul, a doctor (hereinafter “instant member”).

B. The Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment of one year by imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Medical Service Act, which committed a medical act against the patient under the name of 000 with a doctor’s license, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to establish a medical institution, and returned to the National Health Insurance Corporation the total cost of health care benefit in accordance with the decision on recovery of health care benefit costs (hereinafter “the recovery decision”).

C. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the medical and health services provided by the Plaintiff by the instant member does not constitute the medical and health services exempt from the value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) imposed the value-added tax additional tax for the first term of January 2012, 201, the value-added tax additional tax for the second term of February 2012, the value-added tax revenues and additional tax revenues; (c) the value-added tax revenues and additional tax revenues for the first term of January 2013; and (d) the value-added tax revenues and additional tax revenues for the second term of February 2013 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal for adjudication on April 7, 2016, but the appeal was dismissed on June 16, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number in the case with a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

Each disposition of this case depends on whether the cost of health care benefit recovered by the National Health Insurance Corporation constitutes the value-added tax base under Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

2) The following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire facts and arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① a disposition to collect expenses for medical benefits under Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 23(1) of the Medical Care Assistance Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as “disposition to collect unjust enrichment”) are a disposition to reinstate expenses for medical benefits paid, even though such expenses cannot be paid as expenses for medical benefits under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5271, Jun. 24, 2010). Thus, if such expenses are included in the amount of paid medical benefits, it would be an amount that imposes taxes on the income accrued from the provision of medical services or the creation of value-added taxes, apart from the disposition to collect unjust enrichment. In light of the above, the Minister of Health and Welfare can impose a disposition to suspend business on the medical care institution where benefits were paid by fraud or other improper means, and the National Health Insurance Corporation can also impose damages or a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the expenses for medical benefits.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is justified.

C. Sub-committee

The instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.