Plaintiff

Head of Jeju Tax Office

September 21, 2016

Jeju District Court Decision 2015Guhap5324 Decided April 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,572,580 for the plaintiff on December 8, 2014, and of KRW 3,695,540 for the second year value-added tax of KRW 1,572,580 for the plaintiff on December 8, 2012, and the recommendation for revised return for the first year value-added tax of KRW 1,201 for the first year, 2013 and 1, 2013 and 1, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, but the conclusion of the first instance court is deemed reasonable even after examining the contents asserted by the Plaintiff in the statement of grounds of appeal, etc., and additional documents submitted in the trial. The detailed reasons for the judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for amendments to the contents stated in the written judgment of the first instance as follows. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

○ Change of the content from Nos. 15 to 12 on the 5th page as follows:

Article 12(1)6 of the Act and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) stipulate “educational services that teach students, etc. with knowledge, techniques, etc. at schools, private teaching institutes, teaching institutes, training institutes, training institutes, or other non-profit organizations or youth training facilities under the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act” as tax-free educational services. As such, the reason why the competent authority requires “permission or authorization from the competent authority”, “registration or report with the competent authority” is that the competent authority instructs and supervises educational institutions, such as the relevant school or private teaching institutes, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) refers to “other non-profit organizations” under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act or the establishment and operation of facilities and other non-profit Organizations Act.”

In light of the relevant statutes and the relevant legal principles, the museum of this case cannot be deemed to constitute a school, private teaching institute, a training institute, a training institute, a teaching school, or a juvenile training facility under the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act as prescribed by Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff completed the procedure of registration with respect to the museum of this case pursuant to the Museum Art Gallery Act, it cannot be deemed that the museum of this case was registered and established pursuant to the relevant educational facility-related Acts. Thus, the service of this case cannot be deemed to constitute an educational service subject to the VAT exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act. Since the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act was amended on February 17, 2016, and thereafter was included in the object of the VAT exemption (Article 36(1)6), this is more supported by the aforementioned determination on the premise that the service of this case previously supplied was not subject to the VAT exemption in light of the purport of the Value-Added Tax Exemption System.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ma-ju (Presiding Judge)