logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.04.18 2018구합3825
법인세등부과처분취소
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2013, pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff registered the name of an organization as a non-profit corporation that does not engage in profit-making business as a non-profit corporation, and without filing an application for authorization to establish an alternative school under Article 60-3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, established an unauthorized alternative educational facility called “A school” and operated it, and received from students the school development fund, admission fees, tuition fees, dormitories, school meal expenses, etc.

B. From February 15, 2017 to March 6, 2017, the Defendant conducted an integrated investigation into corporate tax with respect to the Plaintiff, and determined that the education expenses received by the Plaintiff as an unauthorized alternative educational facility fall under the subject of corporate tax and value-added tax. On July 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on July 7, 2017 on the Plaintiff’s imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2014 (including additional tax), KRW 665,540 (including additional tax), corporate tax for the business year of 2014, KRW 920,480 (including additional tax), KRW 77,685,230 (including additional tax), and KRW 64,55,50 (including additional tax), and KRW 198,532,260 (including additional tax), and KRW 287,787 (including additional tax for the year of 2015).

C. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 25, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 18, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion under Article 26(1)6 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26600, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act”) are schools, private teaching institutes, registered with, or reported to the competent authority.

arrow