Whether the subject who supplied dental appliances to a hospital is a dental technician or a medical wholesaler

Since there is no evidence to prove that only a hospital and a dental technician have engaged in transactions related to the receipt of direct supply after selecting dental technicians, the argument that a hospital is not a substantial party to the transaction, or that only a broker was involved in the transaction, is groundless.

Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 9,288,200 on July 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff in 2003, value-added tax of KRW 12,926,590 on the first term portion in 2004, and value-added tax of KRW 15,234,470 on the second term portion in 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the wholesale business of medical expendable items, etc., supplied seven dental appliances produced by dental technicians (hereinafter “instant dental appliances”) during the second-year period from 2003 to 2004 to ○○ Hospital affiliated with ○ University. However, the said dental appliances constitute tax-free services under Article 29 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”), deeming that the said dental appliances constitute tax-free services.

B. The Defendant: (a) on the ground that the dental technician supplied the instant dental technician to the Plaintiff without directly supplying the instant dental technician to ○○ Hospital; (b) on the ground that the sales amount of the instant dental technician was omitted; and (c) on July 1, 2005, the Defendant deemed the sales amount of the instant dental technician and issued a notice of KRW 12,926,590, value-added tax for the first period of 2003 to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2005; and (d) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 15,234,470, value-added tax for the second period of 204 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. On October 20, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for review, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on December 23, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6 evidence, Eul 1-1-2 and 3 each statement, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The ○○ Hospital affiliated with the ○ University ordered dental technicians to directly perform dental appliances in accordance with the prescriptions by dentists, and directly supplied dental appliances to ○○ Hospital. However, the ○○ Hospital had no choice but to take the form in which the Plaintiff received invoices from the dental technicians and delivered invoices to the ○ Hospital because all the drugs, etc. required by the hospital can be supplied only through the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in the transaction related to the dental appliances of this case, the actual party is a dental technician and ○ Hospital. Since the plaintiff is not a party to the above transaction, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is a party to the above transaction is illegal.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff involved in the instant transaction, it is merely merely mediating the instant transaction between dental technicians and ○○ Hospital, and it is not subject to value-added tax, given that the Plaintiff did not receive referral fees. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Generally, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition shall be imposed on the tax authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless it proves that the pertinent facts in question are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10343, Jan. 13, 200

(2) In the instant transaction, where the Plaintiff purchased the instant dental appliances from the dental technician and supplied them to the ○○ Hospital, and then received an invoice from the dental technician and delivered an invoice to the ○○ Hospital, the facts of taxation requirements for each of the instant dispositions in light of the empirical rule can be presumed. Therefore, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff is the party to the instant transaction and is not the party to the instant transaction.

However, only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, and 5 are as follows: (a) ○ Hospital engaged in transactions related to dental appliances of this case by selecting dental technicians and directly supplying dental appliances of this case; and (b) it is insufficient to recognize that only ○ Hospital and dental technicians engaged in the transaction related to dental appliances of this case; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was in charge of issuing invoices; and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not the actual party to the transaction of dental appliances of this case, or only arranging the transaction, is without merit.

(3) Therefore, each disposition of this case is lawful, and each of the above arguments by the plaintiff are without merit under the premise that the plaintiff is not a party to the instant dental appliances.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of this case are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

○ Tax exemption Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The supply of the following goods or services shall be exempted from value-added taxes:

4. Medical and health services (including veterinary services) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and blood;

○ Scope of health services under Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Medical and health services as provided for in Article 12 (1) 4 of the Act shall be those as provided for in the following subparagraphs (including those provided by a person who has opened a medical institution or a veterinary hospital pursuant to the Medical Service Act or the Veterinarians Act):

3. Services provided by a clinical path, radiation technician, physical therapy, occupational therapy, dental technician or dental sanitarian prescribed by the Medical Technicians, etc. Act;