logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2019. 11. 28. 선고 2019누1341 판결
주무관청의 인가 허가를 받지 않은 미인가 대안학교의 교육용역 면세여부[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Cheongju District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-3825 ( April 18, 2019)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho-2017-former-4361 (Law No. 18, 2018)

Title

Whether educational service exemption from an alternative school without the permission of the competent authority is granted;

Summary

Unauthorized alternative schools shall not be deemed non-profit organizations meeting the terms in permission, authorization, registration, and report of the competent authorities, and the educational services provided by the Unauthorized alternative schools shall not be exempt from tax.

Related statutes

Article 36 (Scope of Tax-Free Educational Services)

Cases

2019Nu1341 Revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

Plaintiff and appellant

】 】

Defendant, Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

April 18, 2019

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 30, 2019

Imposition of Judgment

November 27, 2019

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the first instance court's decision on July 7, 2017. Each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes), the corporate tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes), the corporate tax of KRW 00,000 for the business year 2015, the first value-added tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes), the second value-added tax of KRW 200,000 for the year 2014, the first value-added tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 2015 (including additional taxes), and the second value-added tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 20,000 for the second year of 2015.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

Even if the evidence presented in the first instance court is examined in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles by the Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence to this court, the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court is deemed legitimate. The reason for the judgment is as follows: (a) the term “non-profit organization of the first instance court is not included in the lifelong education law” (which is registered as a non-profit organization of the second instance pursuant to Article 16(1) of the former Museum and Art Gallery Support Act (amended by Act No. 14204, May 29, 2016), and the term “a museum registered as a non-profit organization of the first instance pursuant to the Lifelong Education Act, which is an educational facility law, is included in a non-profit organization of the Lifelong Education Act” (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow