Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-83690 ( December 05, 2018)

Whether it is an agreement under a contract for the same business or a price for educational services exempt from value-added tax;

If the contract amount under the contract of the same business is related to the private teaching institute lecture, it is reasonable to impose the additional tax because there is no justifiable reason for not reporting and not paying the value-added tax, even if the contents of the contract of the same business are subject to value-added tax.

Article 26 of the Value-Added Tax Act on Supply of Goods or Services

2018Nu59535 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

Bed○○○○○ ment Inc.

○ Head of tax office

November 21, 2018

December 5, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of each value-added tax (including additional tax) on September 6, 2016 as stated in the list of disposition (attached Form) against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Form 2, but excluding the part of "3. conclusion") except for the plaintiff's additional decision on the plaintiff's assertion in this court as stated in the following 2. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The issue of whether the instant settlement money transaction is subject to value-added tax is determined as of September 12, 2016 after obtaining statutory interpretation from the National Tax Service and consulting on tax standards. Thus, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the transaction during the previous period is unlawful in violation of the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

2) Even if the Plaintiff is obligated to report and pay the value-added tax on the instant settlement related transactions, the Defendant, as a telegraph of the Plaintiff, did not point out any value-added tax on the previous transactions similar to the instant settlement related transactions, even though the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s personal business chain’s “OOOO Teaching Institute” and UOO, and the Plaintiff did not report and pay the value-added tax because the instant settlement related transactions were trusted that they are not subject to value-added tax and were not subject to value-added tax. As such, the Plaintiff’s justifiable ground for failing to perform the duty to report and pay the value-added tax on the instant settlement related transactions exists, the part on imposition of additional tax during the instant

B. Determination

1) The principle of retroactive taxation prohibition is not applicable to the taxation requirements that are closed prior to the establishment or amendment of tax laws and subordinate statutes, or when there is any change in the interpretation or guidelines of the tax authority with respect to the relevant laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003). The instant disposition is accompanied by the Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes applicable at the time of the establishment of the tax liability, and it does not constitute a case where the interpretation or guidelines of the tax authority with respect to the laws and regulations are modified. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’

2) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed pursuant to the law in cases where a taxpayer violates a return, tax liability, etc. prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered, and the land or mistake of the law does not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1829, May 23, 2013). In addition, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations is neither extended nor analogically interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstances, and it is not allowed to interpret the said provision as a clearly preferential provision among the requirements for reduction and exemption is in accord with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 209).

In light of the above legal principles, △△△, in principle, is a tax on which taxpayers are specifically determined by their tax base and amount of tax and by filing a tax return. According to Article 26 (1) 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 36 (1) 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, it constitutes an education service exempt from value-added tax for students, students, etc. in a private teaching institute, etc. which is permitted, authorized, registered, or reported to the competent authority. However, it is not a student, but a separate company, and it is clear that the Plaintiff’s settlement-related service provided by the Plaintiff does not constitute an education service exempt from value-added tax. In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court cited by the △△△△△△, it cannot be deemed that there was a non-taxable practice on the settlement-related transaction of this case or that the disposition of this case violated the trust protection principle. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s duty to report and pay value-added tax due to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.