beta
(영문) 대법원 1995. 11. 14. 선고 95누10181 판결

[양도소득세부과처분취소][공1996.1.1.(1),98]

Main Issues

[1] Whether there was an inevitable circumstance for failure to operate a factory for two years or more constitutes an exception to the factory subject to exemption from capital gains tax

[2] The principle of good faith and the requirements for applying non-taxation practices in tax legal relations

[3] The legal nature of the additional tax and the reasonable ground for exemption from the additional tax

Summary of Judgment

[1] If a factory fails to operate at all for two years retroactively from the date of transfer, it cannot be deemed as a "factory continuously operated for two years or more" under Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988) and whether there was an inevitable circumstance for the failure to operate the factory does not constitute an exception to the above provision.

[2] In general, in tax legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's act, the tax authority must name a public opinion statement that is the object of trust to the taxpayer. In addition, in order to establish non-taxable practices under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there exists an objective fact that has not been taxed for a considerable period of time, and the tax authority must have an intention not to impose taxes due to any special circumstance despite being aware that it is able to impose taxes on the matter. Such public opinion or opinion must be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but it must be viewed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike simple omission of taxation. In such cases, the application of the above principle should be denied if the declaration of intention by the tax authority is merely a general opinion statement.

[3] Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered. On the other hand, such a sanction cannot be imposed if there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty, such as where there is a circumstance that it is reasonable to present it, or where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty to do so, or where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable to do so.

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988) / [2] Articles 15 and 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [3] Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 121 of the Income Tax Act

Reference Cases

[2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8947 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1807) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12919 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1104) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10384 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2442), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6574 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 199Sang, 194) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu660 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong191, 2060), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu293939 delivered on October 23, 192, 293; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2939439 delivered on September 39, 29394

Plaintiff, Appellant and Appellee

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant, Appellee and Appellant

Head of the Office of Government

Judgment of remand

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12074 Delivered on March 10, 1995

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu9589 delivered on June 15, 1995

Text

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

Reasons

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal

The court below held that since the factory of this case was not operated entirely for two years retroactively from the date of transfer, it cannot be viewed as "factory continuously operated for two years or more" subject to exemption from capital gains tax under Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988), and whether there are unavoidable circumstances for the plaintiff to fail to operate the factory of this case does not constitute an exception to the above provision. This decision of the court below is just in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court's judgment of remand, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles such as theory of remanded case. Ultimately, the theory of the court below cannot be accepted merely because it argues that the purport of the judgment of remanded case is unjustifiable. The argument is without merit.

(2) As to the second ground for appeal

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must name a public opinion statement that is the object of trust to the taxpayer. In addition, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there exists an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period of time, and there must be an intention not to impose taxes due to any special circumstance even though the tax authority knew that it is able to impose taxes on the matter, and such public opinion or opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but there must be circumstances where it can be deemed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8947 delivered on May 28, 191). In particular, in cases where the declaration of intention of the tax authority is merely a general theoretical opinion statement, the application of the above principle should be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1084 delivered on July 27, 1993).

On May 10, 198, the court below asked the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as to whether the Plaintiff is subject to the imposition of capital gains tax on May 10, 198. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service sent a reply to the purport that "if the Plaintiff transfers the building and land for a factory under the closure or suspension of business, it shall not be considered as a factory continuously operated, or if it is objectively evident that the transfer of the factory was made under the closure or suspension of business due to unavoidable reasons under the statutes or administrative orders, it shall be judged by the head of the competent tax office as to whether there is such inevitable reasons as above." Accordingly, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the transfer income tax on the transfer of the real estate of this case on the date of filing an application for exemption or reduction of capital gains tax on May 30, 1988, and the Defendant also determined that the above transfer income tax was not subject to the tax exemption or reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the transfer of the real estate of this case.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, as prescribed by the individual tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intention and negligence are not considered as administrative sanctions. On the other hand, such sanctions cannot be imposed in cases where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty, such as where there is a circumstance where it is unreasonable for him/her to reasonably present his/her duty or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu15939 delivered on November 23, 1993).

In relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case, the court below asked the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as to whether the Plaintiff is subject to the imposition of capital gains tax, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service made a reply to the Plaintiff's question that "if it is objectively clear that the transfer of the factory was made under the closure or suspension of business due to unavoidable reasons under the statutes or administrative orders, the transfer income tax shall be deemed to be the relocation of the factory continuously operated." Accordingly, the Plaintiff made a decision on the transfer of the real estate along with the Plaintiff's application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, etc., which was accepted the Plaintiff's application for reduction or exemption, and the Defendant was also believed to have concluded that the issue of capital gains tax, etc. of this case was terminated, and the Plaintiff was also believed to have been reduced or exempted. After that, the Board of Audit and Inspection made a decision on whether the real estate of this case is subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, since it was a factory closed for more than 3 years prior to its transfer, the Defendant later corrected the amount of tax reduction or exemption, and exemption of capital gains tax.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)

따름판례

- 대법원 1996. 2. 9. 선고 95누3596 판결 [집44(1)특,694;공1996.4.1.(7),992]

- 대법원 1996. 10. 11. 선고 95누17274 판결 [공1996.11.15.(22),3355]

- 대법원 1997. 7. 11. 선고 96누17486 판결 [공1997.9.1.(41),2546]

- 대법원 1998. 7. 24. 선고 96누18076 판결 [공1998.9.1.(65),2251]

- 서울행정법원 1999. 11. 12. 선고 98구29618 판결 : 항소기각·상고 [하집1999-2, 680]

- 대법원 2000. 1. 21. 선고 97누11065 판결 [공2000.3.1.(101),514]

- 대법원 2000. 2. 11. 선고 98두2119 판결 [공2000.4.1.(103),721]

- 대법원 2000. 8. 18. 선고 98두2713 판결 [공2000.10.15.(116),2022]

- 대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2000두5203 판결 [공2001.6.15.(132),1266]

- 대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 99두3324 판결 [공2001.11.1.(141),2273]

- 대법원 2001. 11. 27. 선고 99두10131 판결 [공2002.1.15.(146),194]

- 대법원 2002. 11. 8. 선고 2001두4849 판결 [공2003.1.1.(169),80]

- 대법원 2002. 11. 26. 선고 2001두9103 판결 [공2003.1.15.(170),248]

- 대법원 2003. 9. 5. 선고 2001두403 판결 [공2003.10.15.(188),2026]

- 대법원 2003. 9. 5. 선고 2001두7855 판결 [공2003.10.15.(188),2031]

- 대법원 2003. 12. 11. 선고 2002두4761 판결 [공2004.1.15.(194),177]

- 대법원 2004. 2. 13. 선고 2002두12144 판결 공보불게재

- 대법원 2005. 1. 27. 선고 2003두13632 판결 [공2005.3.1.(221),336]

- 헌법재판소 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2005헌바54 전원재판부 [헌공제115호]

- 헌법재판소 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2003헌바79 전원재판부 [헌공제115호]

- 헌법재판소 2006. 7. 27. 선고 2004헌가13 전원재판부 [헌공제118호]

- 헌법재판소 2007. 1. 17. 선고 2006헌바3 전원재판부 [헌공제124호]

- 헌법재판소 2013. 8. 29. 선고 2011헌가27 전원재판부 [헌공제203호,1115]

평석

- 신의성실의 원칙과 비과세관행 신동승 박영사

관련문헌

- 조성권 국내회사가 국내사업장이 없는 외국법인과의 공급계약에 따라 그 법인이 지정하는 자에게 서비스를 제공하고 그 대가를 그 법인에게 지급하여야 할 금액에서 차감(상계)하는 방식으로 지급받는 거래가 외화획득 거래 대법원판례해설 84호 / 법원도서관 2010

- 김영심 2002년 소득세법 판례회고 조세법연구 (9-1) (2003.07) / 세경사 2003

- 고영구 가. 상속재산에 관하여 과다신고한 금액이 신고불성실가산세의 부과기준이 되는 '신고한 과세표준'에서 제외되는지 여부(소극), 나. 납부불성실가산세의 정당한 세액과 신고불성실가산세의 정당한 세액을 합한 액수 대법원판례해설 53호 (2005.06) / 법원도서관 2005

- 조성권 조세법률 관계에 있어서 신의성실의 원칙의 적용요건에 관한 새로운 논의 특별법연구 10권 / 사법발전재단 2012

- 법원도서관 재판자료. 제114집:. 행정재판실무연구II 법원도서관 2007

- 민중기 연부연납이 허가된 상속세의 법정기일과 그 이자세액에 조세우선권이 인정되는지 여부 등 대법원판례해설 38호 (2002.06) / 법원도서관 2002

- 윤경아 외국항행선박에서의 사용과 환급된 교통세의 추징 올바른 재판 따뜻한 재판:. 이인복 대법관 퇴임기념 논문집 / 사법발전재단 2016

- 임창훈 세법에서의 신의성실의 원칙 : 과세관청의 언동을 중심으로 재판자료 . 제121집 : 조세법 실무연구 II (2010년 하) 재판자료 121집[조세법실무연구II] / 법원도서관 2010

- 이선애 신고불성실가산세와 납부불성실가산세 조세판례백선 . 2 / 박영사 2016

- 곽태훈 가산세 면제요건인 ‘정당한 사유’에 관한 고찰 저스티스 통권 제159호 / 한국법학원 2017

- 이동신 과태료 사건의 실체법 및 절차법상 제문제 사법논집 31집 / 대법원 법원행정처 2000

- 이규철 가. "공포한 날부터 시행한다."고 규정하고 있는 경우 법령의 시행일, 나. 부진정소급과세와 신뢰보호의 원칙, 전기오류수정손익의 귀속 사업연도, 다. 가산세에 있어서 정당한 사유, 라. 이자수익인 '비영업대금의 대법원판례해설 65호 (2007.07) / 법원도서관 2007

- 김완석 세법상의 신의성실의 원칙 세무사 19권 3호 (2001.11) / 한국세무사회 2001

- 조일영 가. 무효인 구수증서에 의한 유언의 사인증여로의 전환 여부, 나. 상속세의 가산세 면책사유로서의 정당한 사유의 존부 대법원판례해설 58호 (2006.07) / 법원도서관 2006

- 서울행정법원 행정재판실무편람.. II:. 자료집 서울행정법원 2002

- 한국 . 법무부 법무국 법무자료 . 제269집 : 질서위반행위규제법과 각국의 입법례 법무부 법무국 2005

- 마옥현 소득금액변동통지로 인한 소득세 납세의무불이행에 대하여 부과된 납부불성실가산세의 기산일 재판자료 . 제114집 : 행정재판실무연구II 행정재판실무연구 2 / 법원도서관 2007

- 곽태철 명의신탁부동산을 양도하고 자산양도차익 예정신고를 명의수탁자 명의로 한 경우 예정신고 납부세액의 공제 여부 및 신고ㆍ납부불성실가산세 적용 여부 조세판례백선 (2005.08) / 박영사 2005

- 신동승 신의성실의 원칙과 비과세관행 행정판례평선 / 박영사 2011

- 백제흠 가산세 면제의 정당한 사유와 세법의 해석 : 미국과 일본의 판례와 비교ㆍ분석을 중심으로 조세실무연구 . Ⅰ / KIM&CHANG; 2009

- 김용대 2001년 부가가치세법 판례회고 조세법연구 (8-1) (2002.07) / 세경사 2002

- 안경봉 가산세 면제사유로서 정당한 사유, 2 조세 124호 / 조세통람사 1998

- 김철용 행정법학계와 판례 고시계 42권 1호 (96.12) / 국가고시학회 1996

- 정병문 가. 구 법인세법 제14조의 소정의 공사부담금의 익금산입시기 및 공사부담금으로 취득한 고정자산의 손금산입요건 및 그 시기, 나. 가산세의 정당한 사유 대법원판례해설 43호 (2003.07) / 법원도서관 2003

- 최완주 정리절차와 조세 재판자료 86집 / 법원도서관 2000

- 백제흠 가산세 면제의 정당한 사유와 세법의 해석 : 미국과 일본의 판례와 비교ㆍ분석을 중심으로 . 특별법연구 8권 / 사법발전재단 2006

- 전병욱 부동산신탁 간주취득세의 문제점과 개선방안 법학논총 제33집 제3호 / 전남대학교 법학연구소 2013

- 성열우 법인세법상 매입처별 계산서합계표의 제출의무와 가산세 대법원판례해설 45호 (2004.01) / 법원도서관 2004

- 이규철 가. 원고들 및 피고 주장의 각 거래가액을 비상장주식의 가액 산정방법으로서 시가에 해당한다고 볼 수 있는지의 여부(소극), 나. 구 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령 제50조 제6항의 무효 여부(소극), 다. 납부불성실가 대법원판례해설 65호 (2007.07) / 법원도서관 2007

- 강석훈 가. 구 법인세법 제41조 제1항 제2호 소정의 과소신고가산세의 부과대상이 되는지 여부를 판단하는 기준이 되는 '신고하여야 할 과세표준금액'의 의미 및 납세의무자인 내국법인이 처음에 과세표준을 신고하면서 간 대법원판례해설 50호 (2004.12) / 법원도서관 2004

- 김덕진 행정청이 신뢰의 대상이 되는 공적인 견해표명을 한 경우에 있어서의 신뢰보호의 원칙 적용에 관한 고찰 재판실무연구 2000 / 광주지방법원 2001

- 윤지현 가산세 면제 사유로서의 '정당한 사유'의 개념 및 해석 조세판례백선 (2005.08) / 박영사 2005

- 하태흥 지방세법상 추징배제사유인 ‘정당한 사유’의 의미와 판단 기준 대법원판례해설 제94호 / 법원도서관 2013

- 서울고등법원 행정소송실무편람 한국사법행정학회 2003

- 이현승 가. 상속재산인 비상장주식에 대한 보충적 평가를 위하여 당해 법인의 순자산가액을 계산함에 있어서, 상속개시일까지 익금에 산입되지 아니한 자산의 평가차익에 대한 법인세 등 상당액을 재산평가가액에서 공제할 대법원판례해설 31호 (99.05) / 법원도서관 1999

- 이규철 가. 이 사건 물품이 '전기적 양의 측정 또는 검사용의 기기'로서 관세율표상 품목번호 9030.82-0000에 분류될 수 있는지의 여부(적극), 나. 관세법상 신의성실의 원칙 위반 여부(소극) 대법원판례해설 65호 (2007.07) / 법원도서관 2007

참조판례

- [2] 대법원 1991. 5. 28. 선고 90누8947 판결(공1991, 1807)

- 대법원 1993. 2. 23. 선고 92누12919 판결(공1993상, 1104)

- 대법원 1993. 7. 27. 선고 90누10384 판결(공1993하, 2442)

- 대법원 1995. 4. 21. 선고 94누6574 판결(공1995상, 1994)

- [3] 대법원 1991. 6. 25. 선고 90누660 판결(공1991, 2060)

- 대법원 1992. 10. 23. 선고 92누2936, 2943 판결(공1992, 3321)

- 대법원 1993. 6. 8. 선고 93누6744 판결(공1993하, 2049)

- 대법원 1993. 11. 23. 선고 93누15939 판결(공1994상, 220)

참조조문

- 소득세법(구) 제6조 제2항 제2호

- 국세기본법 제15조

- 국세기본법 제18조 제3항

- 국세기본법 제47조 (위헌조문)

- 소득세법 제121조

본문참조판례

당원 1991. 5. 28. 선고 90누8947 판결

당원 1993. 7. 27. 선고 90누10384 판결

당원 1993. 11. 23. 선고 93누15939 판결

본문참조조문

- 소득세법 제6조 제2항 제2호

- 국세기본법 제18조 제3항

원심판결

- 대법원 1995. 3. 10. 선고 94누12074 판결

- 서울고등법원 1995. 6. 15. 선고 95구9589 판결