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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 2,253,590 on September 1, 2017 and KRW 4,614,640 on September 1, 2016 against the Plaintiff and KRW 2,253,590 on September 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

A. From March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff is operating a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “00-40 macks” from 00 macks (area 63.68 macks) to 00 macks (area 63.68 macks) from March 15, 2016.

B. On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax to the Defendant as a simplified taxable person for the first and second taxable periods of 2016.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision of correction that imposes each value-added tax of KRW 2,253,590 and KRW 4,614,640 for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 2,253,590 in 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that “the value-added tax is confirmed to have been reported by being registered as a simplified taxable business entity in an area excluded from simplified taxation” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff accepted an application for simplified business registration and issued a business registration certificate for simplified taxable business registration and trusted the application for simplified taxable business registration and filed a value-added tax return as a simplified taxable person. The disposition of this case imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff as a general taxable person is unlawful as violating the principle of trust protection

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In general, the requirements for applying the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax and legal relations should first be the tax authority’s expression of public opinion subject to trust to the taxpayer; second, the taxpayer’s reliance on the legitimacy of the expression of opinion should not be attributable to the taxpayer; third, the taxpayer should have reliance on the expression of opinion; fourth, the tax authority’s disposition against the above expression of opinion should result in infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18401, May 26, 2006).

The principle of trust and good faith, the principle of protection of trust, or the principle of respect for non-taxation practice, in tax and legal relations, are exceptional legal principles applicable only to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that the protection of taxpayer’s trust is consistent with the justice even if they sacrifice the principle of legality. Therefore, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of protection of trust to a tax authority’s act, the average taxpayer’s trust granted by the tax authority through the public opinion list, etc. should have a reasonable and justifiable expectation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5940, Dec. 26, 2013).

2) According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff filed an application for business registration as a simplified taxable person, and it is recognized that the Defendant received the said application and issued a business registration certificate to the Plaintiff as a simplified taxable person on March 16, 2016. However, business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act is legislative purport of having the tax authority identify the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the taxation data. This is merely a report of business fact, which is constituted by submitting a business registration application to the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving such registration. Thus, even if the Defendant issued the business registration certificate to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff expressed the public opinion that the instant restaurant would apply the simplified taxable person despite the fact that the instant restaurant had been granted the simplified taxable person registration certificate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4795, May 30,

3) In addition, according to the evidence revealed earlier, the facts that the instant restaurant is located in a simplified taxable area, and that the tax base of 2016 of the instant restaurant reaches KRW 179,965,030, can be acknowledged, and considering these circumstances, there is a liability not to properly examine whether the Plaintiff is a simplified taxable person in filing the return of value-added tax.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted, since the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection or the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.