early 2010Gu3376 ( October 14, 2011)

Services related to the progress of training training programs and events shall be subject to value-added tax.

Even if a business registration certificate for tax-exempts was issued, it shall not be deemed that a speech or behavior or a public opinion suggesting that the tax-exempts should be exempted from the value-added tax, and the training program within the training center and the service on the progress of the event shall be subject to value-added tax.

2010Guhap3901 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Kim

O Head of tax office

May 25, 2011

July 6, 2011

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

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 8,244,960 for the second term in 2005, KRW 12,702,440 for the first term in 2006, KRW 8,168,480 for the second term in 2006, KRW 12,44,360 for the first term in 207, KRW 9,979,300 for the second term in 207, KRW 979,300 for the second term in 2007, KRW 9,63,690 for the first term in 208, KRW 11,489,280 for the second term in 208, KRW 11,373,100 for the first term in 209, KRW 11,373,100 for the first term in 209, KRW 209, KRW 365,1381 for the second term in 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On Jun. 1, 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application for business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act with the director of the Bupyeong District Tax Office on June 1, 1993, and was registered as a taxable entrepreneur. On Oct. 4, 1995, the Plaintiff filed a business registration report with the director of the Busan District Tax Office on the business's free occupation, "other free occupation," and received a business registration certificate for the duty-free entrepreneur.

B. On January 28, 2003, the Plaintiff reported the business registration correction to the Defendant as the “Juvenile Training Education”, the location of the location of the Defendant, namely, XX 191-5, and the “Juvenile Training.” On the same day, the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate for the duty-free business from the Defendant.

C. On February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an operational agreement on the training activity education and the progress of training events with the OO World Training Center, and provided services on the training activity training programs and the progress of events in the above training center from March 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant services”), and paid the price, but did not report and pay the value-added tax on the grounds that the Plaintiff is a duty-free business operator.

D. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax, on the ground that the instant service is subject to value-added tax, as stated in the purport of the claim, on the amount of income that is the price thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. The Defendant’s recognition of the Plaintiff as a duty-free business operator and the registration of the Plaintiff’s business will waive the duty of taxation on the Plaintiff’s tax exemption. Moreover, imposing tax on the Plaintiff after recognizing the Plaintiff as a duty-free business operator is contrary to the principle of no taxation, or the principle of trust and good faith.

B. On January 28, 2003, a public official belonging to the Defendant issued a business registration certificate for tax-free business operators to the Plaintiff and did not impose value-added tax for the following seven years, and even during the tax investigation conducted around August 2006, the service of this case was not notified that it is subject to value-added tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid the price for the service of this case, and the Plaintiff did not receive value-added tax separately, thereby causing damage equivalent to the value-added tax, which would ultimately be paid for the disposition of this case. The Plaintiff offsets the liability for damages arising from intentional act by the public official belonging to the Defendant or gross negligence or the tort caused by the Defendant’s neglect of supervision by the delivery of a preparatory document as of February 4, 2011, by setting the liability for damages arising from the tort of this case, which is offset against the obligation of value

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff 2. A. The argument

The purpose of business registration under Article 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) is to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and secure the taxation data. This is to establish a business registration by submitting a report of business fact to the head of the competent tax office and submitting a prescribed business registration application to the head of the competent tax office. Thus, the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely the issuance of the certificate proving

Therefore, even if the Defendant, who is the taxing authority, issued the registration certificate to the Plaintiff, cannot be deemed to have given up the obligation to impose value-added tax or expressed a public opinion that the Defendant would not impose value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23255, Jun. 12, 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff 2. B. argument

Even if the Plaintiff paid value-added tax by offset, repayment, etc. after the disposition of this case, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case was retroactively illegal. Since the disposition of this case is lawful and based on the premise that the Plaintiff is liable to pay value-added tax accordingly, the claim of the Plaintiff cannot be a ground for illegality of the disposition of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.