(a)whether teaching as knowledge of bedclothess is medical or health services;

(b) Whether teaching bedclothess at a private teaching institute which does not obtain permission or authorization from the Government is exempt from tax under Article 12 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (negative);

(a) To teach it as knowledge rather than to receive bedclothes, even if it is provided by a bed or a bed, as defined in the Medical Service Act, is not to provide medical and health services;

B. According to Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, teaching of bedclothess at a private teaching institute which has obtained permission or authorization from the Government among the educational services can only be exempted from the educational services provided by the schools, private teaching institutes, training institutes, training institutes, teaching schools, and other non-profit organizations. Thus, teaching of bedclothess at a private teaching institute which has not obtained permission or authorization from the Government cannot be exempted from the VAT pursuant to Article 12(1)4(b)5 of the Value

Article 12 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Plaintiff

Head of the tax office and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu118, 87Gu418 (Consolidated) Decided November 5, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Even if it is provided for in the Medical Service Act, it is not a bedclothes, but a teaching as knowledge is not a medical and health service. Under Article 12 (1) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the teaching service provided by a school, private teaching institute, a training school, a teaching school, or other non-profit organization which has obtained permission or authorization from the Government among the educational service is exempted from tax. Thus, the teaching of bedclothes to students at a private teaching institute which has not obtained permission or authorization from the Government cannot be exempted from tax pursuant to Article 12 (1) 4 (b) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the judgment below is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles.

The issue is that teaching a bedclothes on the sole ground that it was an unmanned, insofar as there was no method of obtaining authorization for the establishment of a private teaching institute that educates bedclothes, it goes against the principle of substantial taxation, but it cannot be recognized as tax exemption in violation of the provisions of tax law under the principle of no taxation without law, and thus, it cannot be accepted as it is merely the reading team.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

The issue is that it is improper to impose tax only on the readers Plaintiff despite the fact that there was a non-taxable practice in which no value-added tax is imposed on the education service provided by the calcians Institute. However, the above argument does not seem to have been asserted in the court below and there is no evidence to recognize it in the record. Therefore, it is groundless to discuss it.

3. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

According to Article 13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, deeming a juristic person among unincorporated associations, foundations, or other organizations as a juristic person in the application of tax-related Acts, is limited to an unregistered association, foundation, or other organization established with the permission of the competent authority but not registered, and a foundation with basic property contributed for the purpose of public interest, which has not been registered. Thus, the Plaintiff’s club’s club is not an organization established with the permission of the competent authority, but also a foundation with basic property. Thus, the Plaintiff’s club cannot be regarded as a juristic person pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, regardless of whether it is an organization established for

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be accepted that the above academic society should be regarded as a juristic person pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless the purpose of the above academic society is the public interest of supplying bedclothes, which is a unique medicine of Korea.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)