Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap19421 ( October 10, 2015)

Since it was used to supply tax-free educational services supplied with telephone or English services from overseas subsidiaries, it is subject to the payment of value-added tax by proxy.

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay value-added tax on behalf of an overseas corporation that has no domestic place of business, as the Plaintiff received services under the instant agreement from overseas subsidiaries, and provided them with tax exemption business.

2015Nu53208 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

OOO’s receiver of rehabilitation debtor’s OO’s training, a litigation taking-off of an OO’s training corporation

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap19421 decided July 10, 2015

June 23, 2016

July 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant is an OO education corporation (hereinafter referred to as "OO education corporation") on June 1, 2013.

value-added tax for the second quarter of 2008, for the first quarter of 2008, for the first quarter of 2009

00,000,000, value-added tax for the second period of 2009,000, value-added tax for the second period of 2009,00,000, value-added tax for the first period of 2010,000, value-added tax for the second period of 2010,000, value-added tax for the first period of 2010,000,000, value-added tax for the second period of 201, for 200,000,000, and value-added tax for the first period of 20,000,000, and for the second period of 20,000,000 for the second year of 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: "The second and nine (1) judgments of the court of first instance" (2).

In addition, "209" in Part 15 is added to "209" as "20," the second 7 to 7, the third 7, and the third 11 to 5, and the third 6, the third 11 to 6 are referred to as "each counter-party company," and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same with that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff made in the appellate court, and therefore, the decision is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is the non-party company's contractual relationship between the non-party company and the overseas subsidiary company.

on behalf of the customer to receive the service payment from the

The relationship between sending money and the non-party company's overseas subsidiaries can be seen as the relationship between sending money.

(1) The obligation to pay value-added tax on behalf of an agent for sending the payment for educational services

I asserts to the effect that it does not result in the action.

However, domestic students enter into a contract on telephone English lectures with the non-party company.

While paying the price to the non-party company, the non-party company entered into any contract with the overseas association.

Therefore, the overseas subsidiaries are not entitled to pay the service cost that the non-party company pays to the overseas subsidiaries.

on behalf of domestic participants, collect service charges from foreign subsidiaries and send them to foreign subsidiaries.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. In order to provide telephone fishing services in Korea, the Plaintiff is granted a license in accordance with Lifelong Education Act.

Since it is essential to obtain a family, it is essential for the non-party company to provide educational services between the non-party company and its domestic business operator.

domestic business operators directly give lectures to domestic students by concluding a contract on the contract;

(2) The service provided by the business shall be subject to value-added tax exemption as an education service.

The non-party corporation entered into a contract for the provision of educational services with a foreign business operator and entered domestic students in Korea.

If the non-party company is required to give direct lectures, the non-party company shall be obligated to pay value-added tax on behalf of the non-party

If it is recognized, a foreign business as a result is more than a domestic business operator who does not pay value-added tax.

I argue to the effect that it is unfair as a result of more unfavorable discrimination against people.

However, a domestic entrepreneur shall pay education services to the non-party company after obtaining the approval from the government.

by contract and directly providing telephone English lectures to domestic students.

The exemption from the value-added tax is pursuant to Article 12(1)5 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the exemption from the value-added tax is a natural consequence that occurs due to the failure of the authorization under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act to obtain the authorization of the government and to provide education services to the non-party company. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. The plaintiff asserts that the non-party company did not directly enter into most contracts with the students, and entered into a contract with the specialized education company, such as AAAAM camp education business division and BB education business division, and the company received the fees from the specialized education company, not directly received from the students. In the above case, the defendant considers the services provided by the non-party company as the education service exempt from the value-added tax, but it is unfair that the foreign subsidiaries do not exempt the value-added tax for the services directly provided to the domestic students under the contract with the non-party company.

However, both Nonparty Company and AAAA Mtamp Education Business Division and BB Education Business Division are enterprises authorized as lifelong education facilities under the Lifelong Education Act, and the services provided by Nonparty Company to students directly through AAAA Mtamp Education Business Division or BB Education Business Division can be deemed as educational services exempt from value-added tax. However, in this case, since foreign subsidiaries are not lifelong education establishments under the Lifelong Education Act, the services provided by foreign subsidiaries to Nonparty Company cannot be deemed as education services exempt from value-added tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.