National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0122 (201.02)

Educational services provided without permission or authorization by the competent authority shall not be subject to value-added tax exemption.

The plaintiff's act of extracurricular lessons constitutes the provision of educational services, and the plaintiff's act of extracurricular lessons is not subject to tax exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act, as long as the plaintiff provided educational services without obtaining permission or authorization from the competent authority, by employing or awarding a contract (or delegation contract) for extracurricular lessons.

Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax;

NewA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

June 1, 2012

June 15, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 10, 2010, the second half-year value-added tax for the Plaintiff on November 10, 2005, and 2006

The imposition of value-added tax for the first term of year, 00 won for the second term of 206, and 000 won for the first term of 2007, value-added tax for the second term of 2007, 000 won for the second term of 2007, and 000 won for the second term of 2008, 000 won for the second term of 2008, and 000 won for the first term of 2009, and 000 won for the second term of 209, and 200 won for the second term of 209, and 00 won for the first term of 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 2005, the Plaintiff received tuition fees from individuals and extracurricular instructors (instructors) after engaging in the business of managing learning, providing time counseling, selling teaching materials, and dispatching individual and extracurricular lessons in the trade name called “DD education,” and paying tuition fees to them.

B. The Plaintiff reported the learning fees, including tuition fees, to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “educational services eligible for exemption from value-added tax” and the sales amount of value-added tax exemption.

C. On November 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff offered educational services without registering a private teaching institute, and thus, constitutes not subject to value-added tax exemption.”

D. On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but, on January 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection.

3. Upon receipt of a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on June 17, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request for review to revoke the instant disposition, but received a decision of dismissal from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 2, 201.

[Based on Recognition] Specifications 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 1, 4, 5, and 6 (including household numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s entry consultation with the students or parents directly or via the Internet, and the students or parents wishing to be outside the country have provided the personal extracurricular lessons to the students or parents who wish to receive the personal extracurricular lessons, and it cannot be viewed as the educational services. In addition, since the Plaintiff received tuition fees from the students or parents and delivered them to the individual extracurricular lessons, it cannot be deemed as the added value generated by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Activities such as promotional activities;

The plaintiff publicizeds the contents of the plaintiff's educational services through telemast, leaflets, etc. and recruited its members. "The plaintiff has a learning manager who is equipped with the optimal instructor system for sexual improvement, and has a learning manager who focuses on only learning management separately from a specialized instructor, a learning manager, a student, and a parent who separately manages a specialized instructor, a learning manager, a student, and a parent."

The promotional materials were distributed.

(2) enter into and manage a contract with an individual extracurricular lessons;

(A) The Plaintiff had an office of 000 O buildings 000 O buildings in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and there were employees who manage instructors, manage learning, manufacture and distribute teaching materials, provide on-site counseling, offer instructors and invite members (in 2006: 4 to 6, 2007, 2007: 4, and 2008: 2 to 3).

(B) The Plaintiff entered into a contract for delegation of guidance with an individual extracurricular lessons. The contract shall be the same.

The term of contract is at least six months, and if an individual and extracurricular teaching instructor fails to comply with the contract term due to the reasons of the first day, the contract can be terminated after compensation for damages to the plaintiff. The individual and extracurricular teaching instructor shall transfer the contract to a full-time lecturer after the termination of the contract.

(C) The Plaintiff voluntarily selects individuals and extracurricular instructors to be assigned to the students, and preferentially allocates individuals and extracurricular instructors who receive good reaction from parents. The Plaintiff also recommends that “the study materials published by the Plaintiff are utilized.”

(D) Private extracurricular instructors divide the Plaintiff’s employees and their opinions on the progress of classes, etc. by telephone, etc. once a month.

(iii)receiving and allocating tuition fees and tuition fees;

(A) The Plaintiff received tuition fees in cash or by credit card from learners. The tuition fees shall consist of tuition fees, visiting management expenses (on a monthly basis, money received by the Plaintiff for establishing a learning plan and checking the degree of learning damage), teaching materials expenses, and telephone consulting expenses (on a yearly basis, money received by the Plaintiff for counseling on the direction of entry by telephone, the mother’s death, and the internal and internal identity). The details of the study fees are as follows. The detailed composition of the study fees are as follows.

(B) From 2006 to 2010, the Plaintiff’s gross sales and the Plaintiff’s tuition fees are as listed below.

(4) Tax treatment;

(A) The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return on the total amount of the tuition fees as tax-free sales, and the tax-free sales trade code as “educational service/private teaching institutes (other quasi-private teaching institutes, and teaching schools).”

(B) The Plaintiff reported the entire tuition fees as income tax, and received tuition fees as necessary expenses.

(C) The Plaintiff paid the remainder to an individual extracurricular lessons except for business income tax (3.3%) from tuition fees.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 4, 14, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 (including household numbers), witness KimT testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the nature of educational services

According to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, human resources supply leaves (7510) as follows: (i) it provides that it is the primary industrial activity of the Plaintiff’s personal workers under its own management, and that it is the case of selecting, arranging and arranging human resources on behalf of the employer or job seeker, and that it is the primary industrial activity of the Plaintiff. (ii) it is the case of the Plaintiff’s establishment, operation and extracurricular Act, and it is the case of the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation of private teaching institutes, and that it is the case of the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation of private teaching institutes, and that it is the case of the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation of teaching materials or the case of the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation of private teaching institutes, including those of elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, or other schools, or examiners for school entrance or recognition of academic attainments. (iii) It is the case that the Plaintiff’s business activity constitutes an employment brokerage, and that it is not the case where the Plaintiff’s management or administration rights are exercised for the individual or extracurricular, and that it is not the Plaintiff’s management or management rights.

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s value added nature

Even if tuition fees received from students or parents were paid as they are to individuals and extracurricular instructors, as above, the teaching activity of individual and extracurricular instructors constitutes Plaintiff’s educational services, and it constitutes Plaintiff’s added value.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff provided educational services without permission or authorization from the competent authority, it is not subject to tax exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided