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

A. From September 2009 to July 201, the Plaintiff operated an entertainment tavern with the trade name of 000 to 143.52 square meters in size (hereinafter “the entertainment tavern in this case”) (However, on September 2009, the Plaintiff entered the area of the entertainment tavern in this case into 158 square meters by mistake at the time of filing an application for business registration with the Defendant around September 2009).

B. From October 2009 to July 201, 201, the Plaintiff placed entertainment workers in the instant entertainment tavern business and operated entertainment tavern business, and reported and paid 000 won in total of individual consumption tax and education tax to the Defendant during the said period.

C. On September 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff would refund individual consumption tax and education tax reported and paid to the Defendant as above, but the Defendant rejected the request on November 1, 201 on the ground that the Plaintiff is subject to individual consumption tax as long as the Plaintiff actually engaged in entertainment tavern business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 1 and 7, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the 2nd entertainment tavern promotion plan established and implemented by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service from around 1999, the entertainment tavern is subject to individual consumption tax only when the area of business is not less than 45 square meters (148.761 square meters), and the area of business of the entertainment tavern of this case is less than the above 45 square meters, and thus, the entertainment tavern of this case does not constitute subject to individual consumption tax. Furthermore, the defendant did not impose individual consumption tax on entertainment tavern of less than 45 square meters in the military area since around 1999 in accordance with the above guidelines, and the plaintiff trusted it, and the plaintiff does not constitute subject to individual consumption tax for the sake of protecting the trust and equity in taxation. Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition rejecting a request for refund of the plaintiff's individual consumption tax and so on is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant disposition violates the "promotion plan for taxation normalization of entertainment tavern"

A) On February 3, 1997, the National Tax Service established the first-stage promotion plan for entertainment tavern taxation (hereinafter referred to as the "first-stage promotion plan"), and the first-stage promotion plan provides that if a business entity licensed for entertainment tavern imposes a special consumption tax on a lump sum regardless of its size, it is shock that the small-scale business entity suffers from difficulty in living, so that it first imposes tax on the small-scale business entity within the scope of the taxable items by region and by scale, and the head of the tax office considers it appropriate to impose tax on the small-scale business entity at least 10 in the second-stage promotion plan for the first-stage promotion plan for the special consumption tax, at least 30 square meters in Metropolitan Cities and above, and at least 40 square meters in Sis and Guns, and at least 40 square meters in areas, and at least 40 square meters in areas falling short of the standards for the first-stage promotion plan for entertainment bar taxation.

B) According to the above plan to promote the normal taxation of entertainment bars, in principle, in the Gun where the entertainment bars in this case are located, the entertainment bars in this case fall under the subject of individual consumption tax if their business area is not less than 45 square meters, and the actual business area of the entertainment bars in this case falls short of 45 square meters (148.5 square meters), such as the plaintiff's assertion, but on the other hand, under the plan to promote the normal taxation of the entertainment bars in this case, where entertainment bars in this case where entertainment bars in this case is confirmed and it is deemed appropriate for the head of a tax office to impose taxes even if the actual business area falls short of the standard size, the individual consumption tax is imposed. As seen in the above plan to promote the normal taxation of entertainment bars in this case, and even if the defendant imposes individual consumption tax on the plaintiff, it does not violate the above plan to promote the normal taxation of entertainment bars

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Whether the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection

A) Generally, in tax legal relations, in order to apply the principle of good faith to tax authorities’ actions.

First, the tax authorities must provide taxpayers with a public opinion that they are trusted, and

Second, with respect to the taxpayer's trust that the tax authority's expression of opinion is justified, the taxpayer must not be responsible for it; and

Third, the taxpayer must trust the expression of its opinion, to what extent it is, and to

Fourth, by making a disposition against the above expression of opinion, the interests of the taxpayer should be infringed, and on the other hand, the provisions of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes and administrative rules themselves do not constitute a public expression of opinion by the tax authorities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003).

B) In this case, the above first and second stages promotion plan is a practical standard established by the National Tax Service for the normalization of taxation of special consumption tax on entertainment taverns and operated uniformly by the National Tax Service, and the main contents of which are less than 45 square meters in the area of the Gun, in principle, once the individual consumption tax is imposed on entertainment tavern with respect to which the area of business is less than 45 square meters in the area of the Gun, and in addition to the above area standards, if it is deemed appropriate for the head of the tax office to confirm the contents of taxation regardless of the area (the first step promotion plan) and to impose the entertainment and eating regardless of the area and to impose the individual consumption tax on the business where it is deemed appropriate for the head of the tax office to impose the entertainment and eating regardless of the area of the above area (the second step promotion plan), it cannot be deemed that the public opinion that "I will not impose the individual consumption tax uniformly on entertainment tavern below a certain size," and in this case, there is no evidence to conclude that the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the public opinion that I will not impose the individual consumption tax in accordance

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Whether the instant disposition is against the equity in taxation

A) Individual citizens must be treated equally in various tax legal relations, and the principle that tax burden should be equally allocated among the citizens according to their ability to pay taxes is referred to as tax equality principle. On the other hand, the principle of taxation based on the capacity to pay taxes, which is demanded by the principle of tax equality, requires that the same subject of taxation should be imposed in principle at the same time, and on the other hand, require that the allocation of fair tax burden should be made among the other subject of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hun-Ma55 delivered on November 25, 199).

B) However, according to the above first and second stages promotion plan, in the case where a person engaged in entertainment as seen above, he may impose individual consumption tax, etc. on a person who is below the standard area, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant, even though he had a person engaged in entertainment as a business with less than the standard area, such as the instant entertainment drinking house, was not subject to the same taxation. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of tax equality or the equity in taxation.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.