[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that where Gap corporation, a non-profit incorporated association, whose members are former and incumbent public officials belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, newly constructed a dormitory building for children of public officials stationed abroad, and the tax authorities and the Minister of Foreign Affairs submitted opinions on local tax exemption, including acquisition tax, to Gap corporation and the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Minister of Home Affairs sent a reply that "the Minister of Home Affairs is exempt from acquisition tax if Gap corporation is a academic research organization and a scholarship organization and acquired real estate to use directly by Gap corporation," and the tax authorities did not impose acquisition tax, property tax, etc. on Gap corporation for about about 19 years, and the tax authorities imposed property tax, etc. on Gap corporation on the ground that the above real estate does not constitute real estate

In addition, the public opinion statement of the tax authority needs to be made explicitly or implicitly by a tax official who is in a position of responsibility. However, the principle of trust and good faith or the prohibition of speech is applied to a case where there are special circumstances that are deemed that the protection of taxpayer's trust is consistent with the justice and equity, even if it has made a sacrifice of legality, and there is a key element of the legal doctrine in that it is the protection of taxpayer's trust. Therefore, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement of the tax authority, one of the above requirements, the determination of whether there is a public opinion statement of the tax authority should be made by the substance in light of the organization and duties of the person in charge, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility.

[2] In a case where Gap corporation, a non-profit incorporated association, whose members are former and incumbent public officials belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, newly constructed a dormitory building for children of public officials stationed abroad, and the tax authorities and the Minister of Foreign Affairs submitted opinions on local tax exemption, including acquisition tax, to Gap corporation and the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Minister of Home Affairs sent a reply that "the Minister of Home Affairs is exempt from acquisition tax if Gap corporation is a academic research organization and scholarship organization and acquired real estate to use directly by Gap corporation," and for about 19 years, the tax authorities did not impose acquisition tax, property tax, etc. related to Gap corporation's real estate, such as dormitory building, etc., on the ground that the tax authorities and the Minister of Home Affairs did not use the above real estate directly or directly for its unique duties, the tax authorities and the Minister of Home Affairs expressed the public opinion that "the above real estate constitutes a academic research organization and scholarship organization exempt from property tax, etc., and the above real estate constitutes a violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and thus Gap corporation's disposal was unlawful.

1. According to Article 18 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, a tax official shall perform his/her duties in good faith. Generally, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of a tax authority in tax and law relations, the tax authority must express a public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer; ② the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance; ③ the taxpayer must act in trust and what reliance on the reliance on the reliance; ④ the tax authority shall make a disposition contrary to the above reliance on the reliance on the reliance, thereby infringing on the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu593, Apr. 23, 1985; 2008Du11155, Jun.

In addition, the public opinion statement of the tax authority needs to be made explicitly or implicitly by a tax official who is in a position of a certain responsibility. However, the principle of good faith or the principle of closed speech is applied to a case where there are special circumstances that are deemed to protect the taxpayer's trust and equity even if there are any special circumstances that are deemed to correspond to the justice and equity. Thus, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement of the tax authority, one of the above requirements, it does not necessarily interfere with the formal authority and authority division of the administrative organization, and it should be determined by the substance in light of the organization and duties of the person in charge, the specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu12159, Jun. 16, 1995; 2007Du25060, Apr. 24, 2008).

2. A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts by citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment and adding or supplementing some content.

1) The Plaintiff is a non-profit incorporated association established on February 16, 1973 after obtaining permission for establishment from the Government for the purpose of raising citizens' awareness of research on international affairs and diplomatic affairs, and conducting private diplomatic activities with the former and incumbent public officials belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its members.

2) The Plaintiff received national subsidies from around 1977, and operated dormitories for the children of public officials stationed abroad in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu.

① At the time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a supervisory agency of the Plaintiff, requested the Minister of Home Affairs to confirm whether the land and building acquired by the Plaintiff is eligible for exemption from acquisition tax, property tax.

② On November 28, 1977, the Minister of Home Affairs, who was in charge of guidance, supervision, etc. of the imposition and collection of local taxes as the superior agencies of the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent a letter of public notice to the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating, “The buildings and sites of the above dormitory shall not be subject to acquisition tax or property tax, etc. pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 107 and Article 184(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3488, Dec. 31, 1981) as the real estate to be used directly for the business of academic and other public interest.”

③ The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, etc. did not impose acquisition tax, property tax, etc. on the Plaintiff.

3) Upon the deterioration of the above dormitory building, the Plaintiff purchased approximately 12,803 square meters on February 2, 1996, the Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 27, 1996. On December 15, 1997, the Plaintiff commenced a dormitory building on the ground above the above land, the fourth floor above the ground, and the first floor above the ground (including attached buildings; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 22, 200, and obtained approval for use of the above building from the competent authority on December 22, 200 (hereinafter the above land and the above buildings collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”).

① The Minister of Foreign Affairs requested the Defendant to exempt acquisition tax on the grounds as seen earlier, but the Defendant notified the Defendant of the pre-announcement of local tax taxation on the instant real estate on October 9, 1997.

② However, the Plaintiff and the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented to the Defendant and the Minister of Home Affairs the opinion that “The instant real estate shall be exempted from local taxes, such as acquisition tax, etc., pursuant to Article 290(1)18 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 2000) concerning exemption from acquisition tax, property tax, etc., since the Plaintiff, who is a academic research organization or scholarship organization, acquired the instant real estate to use it directly for its unique

③ On November 22, 1997, the Minister of Home Affairs sent a reply to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “If the Plaintiff is a academic research organization and scholarship organization and the Plaintiff acquires real estate to use directly by the Plaintiff, acquisition tax shall be exempted pursuant to the said provision.” After that, the Defendant did not impose acquisition tax, property tax, etc. on the Plaintiff for about 19 years.

4) However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing property tax, etc. from July 10, 2016 to September 10, 2016 on the ground that the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff does not constitute real estate used directly by the academic research organization under Article 45(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 14477, Dec. 27, 2016); Article 22 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27711, Dec. 30, 2016) and Article 22 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, on the following grounds:

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the part of the instant disposition, which exceeds the tax imposed on the leased portion of the instant real estate to another organization, was unlawful as it goes against the principle of good faith.

1) The Defendant and the Minister of Home Affairs expressed, explicitly or implicitly, the public view that “the Plaintiff constitutes a academic research organization or scholarship organization exempt from property tax, etc., and the instant real estate constitutes real estate used directly by the Plaintiff for its unique duties and is not subject to property tax, etc.” to the Plaintiff.

① Before acquiring the instant real estate, the tax authority had received a written notice from the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the Plaintiff’s exemption from local tax, and had no separate taxation on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff at the time.

② At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation, including acquisition tax, to the Plaintiff. However, after the Plaintiff’s response to specific questioning and cooperation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there was no taxation disposition regarding the property tax, acquisition tax, etc. on the instant real estate for 19 years from the date of the instant disposition.

③ Even if the Minister of Home Affairs reserved a decision as to whether the Plaintiff’s reply constitutes eligible for exemption from local taxes, such as acquisition tax, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant explicitly expressed the public opinion to the above purport, since the Defendant did not impose property tax, acquisition tax, etc. on the instant real estate for about 19 years after the reply of the Minister of Home Affairs, even though the notification of tax advance notice was given.

2) As to the real estate used for its unique duties, the Plaintiff acquired and used the instant real estate since 1997 with trust in the name of the public opinion of the Defendant, the Minister of Home Affairs, etc. that is exempt from property tax, etc., and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff’s trust in the name

3. Examining the history and content of the relevant statutes in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of good faith, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)