2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), and the whole purport of arguments.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established on August 20, 1986 pursuant to the Independence Hall of Korea Act that collects, preserves, manages, and displays materials of the Memorial, investigates and studies materials of the Memorial, manages and expands facilities of the Memorial, manages and expands the facilities of the Memorial Hall, and carries out business and investment in the projects to raise funds for the operation of the Memorial Hall. The Plaintiff’s business revenue consists of revenue generated from taxation projects, such as lease, revenue from parking, and revenue from admission to the Independence Hall of Korea, and revenue from tax-free business, such as admission fees of the Independence Hall of Korea. The Plaintiff’s business revenue consists of revenue generated from such taxable projects as revenue from taxation, such as revenue from lease, admission of parking, and sales of souvenirs. The Plaintiff’s national subsidy is annually paid from the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Culture and Tourism, etc. as part of the revenue budget corresponding to the Plaintiff’s budget corresponding to the Plaintiff’s expenditure, such as personnel expenses, general administration expenses, facility

B. Meanwhile, from the first to the first half of 2003, the classification of input tax amounts during the taxable period from 2003 to the first half of 2007 is as follows:

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for correction against the Defendant on the grounds that the common input tax base and its tax amount were not deducted from the relevant output tax amount in 2004 when the Plaintiff filed a return on and paid the value-added tax without deducting the common input tax amount from the relevant output tax amount, and that the subsidies were not included in the tax-free supply price and the total supply price. Accordingly, in calculating the common input tax, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and subsequently refunded KRW 249,280,010 in total of the value-added tax paid in excess of the purchase tax amount calculated on the basis of the amount calculated not including the tax-free supply price and the total supply price (hereinafter “instant correction disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base and tax amount of the value-added tax for the first day of 2005, 207, when it reported on the tax base and tax amount for the first day of 2007, the Plaintiff calculated and paid the input tax amount related to the output tax amount not deducted from the relevant output tax amount without including the tax-free supply price and the total supply price.

D. However, the defendant, from October 15, 2007 to October 19, 2007, conducted a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff, during the taxable period from the first to the first period from 2003 to 2007, each of the above national subsidies (hereinafter referred to as the "the above national subsidies") should be included in the tax-free supply price and the total supply price in calculating the common purchase tax by each taxable period. The defendant, according to the method of calculating the above tax amount, calculated as stated in the "main tax" column as stated in the "main tax" column as stated in each taxable period, added each of the following additional tax to the tax amount calculated as stated in the "additional tax on negligent tax return" and the "additional tax on negligent tax on negligent payment" column as stated in the following table, and imposed added tax on the plaintiff on March 11, 2008.

E. On April 24, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 24, 2008. On September 30, 2009, the Tax Tribunal revoked the imposition of the first, second, and first, second, and second, the imposition of the value-added tax on September 2003, 2009 on the ground that there were justifiable grounds for not being negligent in the Plaintiff’s negligence of duty, but all remaining claims were dismissed. In addition, on May 27, 2008, the Defendant, ex officio on May 27, 2008, included the unpaid amount to be refunded to the Plaintiff according to the initial return in the amount to be refunded, and subsequently corrected the amount to be reduced by KRW 83,818,760 equivalent to the already paid tax amount (hereinafter the same shall apply to the portion of the imposition disposition by the Tax Tribunal and the Defendant’s correction after ex officio reduction on May 27, 2008.)

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) First, since the State subsidy of this case is a subsidy that the Plaintiff received pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Independence Hall of Korea Act, not the cost for the Plaintiff’s provision of goods or services, and thus, it cannot be included in the tax-free supply price and the total supply price, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated the input tax amount including the tax-free supply price and the total supply price is unlawful. However, even if it is not so, the State subsidy of this case that the Plaintiff received is expected to be used not only for the tax-free or non-taxable business, but also for the taxable business, and the State already approves that the subsidy would be used for the taxable business. Thus, it is unlawful to include the subsidy of this case in the tax-free or non-taxable supply price for calculating the common purchase tax amount under the premise that the subsidy

(2) The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s request for correction and issued the instant correction disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff calculated and paid the value-added tax by calculating the common purchase tax without including the State subsidy in the tax-free supply price and the total supply price, with respect to the value-added tax after the relevant taxable period. The Defendant’s previous position that changed the previous position was unlawful, as it violates the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of protecting trust.

(3) In calculating the common purchase tax amount for household affairs, even though it is reasonable to include the national subsidy of this case in the tax-free supply value, there is no explicit interpretation precedent, including precedents, as to how to deal with the national subsidy in connection with the common purchase tax amount. In calculating the common purchase tax by questioning to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Plaintiff received the answer that the national subsidy does not include the supply of tax-free goods and processed the value-added tax in accordance with its purport. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s exemption from the penalty tax is justified, and thus, the additional tax portion among

Accordingly, even where a uniform entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the input tax amount shall be deducted from the output tax amount of the taxable business to be used or to be used for the taxable business under the principle of calculating the amount of tax payable. The input tax amount for the goods or services used or to be used for the tax-free business shall not be deducted. However, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the method of calculating the input tax amount which is related to the taxable business among the input tax amount which is commonly used for the taxable business and the tax-free business, and which cannot be deducted from the output tax amount which is related to the taxable business, and that cannot be deducted from the output tax amount which is related to the taxable business. However, since the input tax amount deduction under Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is related to the goods or services used or to be used for the taxable business, it shall not be deemed that the entrepreneur is not jointly used for the taxable business or the tax-free business under Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(B) In this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s revenue consists of revenues related to taxable business and tax-free business and national subsidies, and national subsidies do not constitute the tax base for value-added tax under Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act. The above provision is interpreted to the purport that, where an entrepreneur supplied goods or services as an executor of a subsidized project subject to the grant of national subsidies and received national subsidies, the relevant entrepreneur does not include the amount equivalent to the above national subsidy in the value-added tax base for the supply of goods or services. Furthermore, in this case, the Plaintiff’s national subsidy provided pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Independence Hall of Korea Act cannot be deemed as the payment for the services provided by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is subject to value-added tax exemption.

(C) In addition, as seen in the above legal principles, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act can also apply to the case where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a non-taxable business. Thus, it is reasonable to apply the above provision to the case where the Plaintiff receives a national subsidy subject to non-taxation while concurrently operating a taxable business and a tax-free business. As such, since the input tax amount related to a non-taxable national subsidy among the common input tax amount cannot be deducted from the output tax amount due to a taxable business, the input tax amount for the non-taxable tax cannot be deducted from the output tax amount due to the taxable business, the input tax amount for the non-taxable business should be calculated by including each national subsidy from the calculation formula under Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and the total supply amount under Article 61(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, so long as the actual reversion of the input tax amount related to the taxable business and the tax-free business cannot be separated from the common input tax amount.

(D) As to this, the plaintiff is expected to use the government subsidy of this case for taxation as well as tax-free or non-taxable projects, and the State already approves that the government subsidy of this case will be used for taxation. Accordingly, according to the plaintiff's assertion that it is unlawful to include it in tax-free or non-taxable supply price for calculating common purchase tax solely on the premise that the government subsidy of this case is for tax-free or non-taxable projects, according to the items of evidence Nos. 5 through No. 6 (including each number), the plaintiff has been implemented with the approval of the Minister of Culture and Tourism for the business plan and budget of the corresponding year. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall calculate the total amount of the government subsidy and the budget of the corresponding year with the revenue budget by dividing it into ordinary subsidy and the capital subsidy, and the expenditure budget as the revenue budget by dividing it into personnel expenses, general management expenses, facility maintenance expenses, business innovation expenses, management innovation expenses, and various items of expenses related to the government subsidy, expenses related to the government subsidy, expenses related to the government subsidy, expenses related to the government subsidy, etc.

However, even according to the above budget bill of the Plaintiff, the government subsidy of this case is merely classified into ordinary subsidies and capital subsidies, and it is not clearly specified from the beginning by dividing it into items related to taxable business or tax-free business, and even according to the details of such use, each amount of expenditure is related to taxable business and it cannot be clearly distinguished from what is related to the use of tax-free business. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the government subsidy received from the Plaintiff is paid by the State for its proper purpose business necessary to achieve the Plaintiff’s purpose of its establishment, and it is not determined as a taxable and tax-free income amount in accordance with its ex post facto use. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

(2) Judgment on the second ground

(A) As a general requirement for the application of the principle of good faith and the principle of protection of trust to the acts of tax authorities in tax and law relations, first, the tax authorities must express public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, second, the taxpayer's trust that the expression of opinion is legitimate does not cause any cause attributable to taxpayers; third, the taxpayer must trust the name of the opinion and engage in the act what is in compliance with it; fourth, the tax authorities should make a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu156, Mar. 8, 198).

(B) In this case in light of the above legal principles, the fact that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's request for correction and received the disposition of correction of this case, but conducted the disposition of this case through the tax investigation is as seen earlier. However, in the event that the tax authority finds any error in the disposition of taxation ex post facto, it may correct or re-revision the original disposition based on the tax laws and regulations as at the date on which the duty to pay taxes was established, or may make a re-disposition after cancelling the initial disposition. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's request for correction and expressed a public opinion that the defendant would not take the disposition of this case against the plaintiff.

(3) A third-class judgment

(A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered. On the other hand, such a sanction cannot be imposed in cases where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the taxpayer’s failure to perform his/her duties, such as where there are circumstances where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty, or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005).

(B) In the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence and evidence evidence No. 3 as seen earlier, namely, ① when the Plaintiff returns the tax base and amount of value-added tax for the first period from the first period of 2003 to the second period of 2004, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to calculate value-added tax excluding national subsidies from the tax-free supply price and the total supply price. After receiving the Plaintiff’s request for correction, the Defendant filed a request for correction with the Plaintiff to calculate value-added tax excluding national subsidies from the tax-free supply price and the total supply price. The Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax excluding national subsidies was derived from the Defendant’s correction disposition of the instant case; ② the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax excluding the common purchase tax for the first period of 200 to the second period of 200 to the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax for the reason that the Plaintiff did not have any justifiable reasons for revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 20 to the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax.

(C) Therefore, among the dispositions in this case, 28,056,920 won for the second term of 2004 (i.e., 7,953,769 won for the additional tax + 20,103,151 won for the additional tax), 48,042,647 won for the first term of 205 (i.e., 12,601,350 won for the additional tax + 35,41,297 won for the additional tax for the second term of 205 + 16,362,162 won for the additional tax for the second term of 205 (i.e., 5,018, 298 won for the additional tax for the additional tax for the additional tax for the additional tax for the past term of 11,343,864 won + 20,685 won for the additional tax for the additional tax for the second term of 205,3614 won for the remaining additional tax for the tax for 205 year.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.