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

A. On July 1, 1987, the Plaintiff was a corporation established to efficiently promote park management projects, including the conservation of national parks, under the provisions of the Natural Parks Act. The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return on the amount of parking fees for each local office, which occurred from July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007, when the 26 local offices nationwide, install parking lots within each national park and directly collect the fees.

B. On October 11, 2007, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office amended Article 106(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as a result of the tax investigation by the Plaintiff on February 9, 2006. Since July 1, 2006, the Plaintiff’s “parking lot operation business” was converted to a taxable business, and the Plaintiff’s “parking lot operation business” included the instant parking fee revenue amount in the base of value-added tax and notified the Defendants of the taxation data. The Defendants accordingly notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On April 2008, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On August 27, 2008, the Tax Tribunal excluded the portion of the additional tax on negligent tax returns (additional tax on negligent tax return) and the additional tax on negligent tax payment related to the revenue from the parking lot from the disposition of this case, and decided to rectify the relevant tax amount and dismiss the remainder of the claims as stated in the separate sheet.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 56 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff is entrusted by the Minister of Environment with the duties of maintaining and managing national park facilities and implementing park projects. Since the duties of collecting parking fees are the state affairs conducted in the position of the park management agency, it is reasonable to deem the amount of parking fees in this case to be exempted from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. (2) Even if the duties of collecting parking fees are not the state affairs, the amount of value-added tax is exempted from the government agency under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and (3) there was an authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Finance and Economy to exempt value-added tax on the fees received by the facility management corporation under the Local Public Enterprises Act for its operation and users of a public parking lot; (4) despite the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Enforcement Rule of the same Act still prescribes the duties concerning the use of the parking lot of the Plaintiff and the fact that the value-added tax is not collected in the case of the parking lot within

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the duty of collecting fees for parking lots in a national park is national affairs

Article 12(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any goods or services supplied by the State, a local government, or a local government association, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree" as one of the goods or services exempt from value-added tax. For the efficient promotion of park management projects, including the preservation of national parks, the Plaintiff, a corporation established under the Natural Parks Act, shall not be deemed to be the State, a local government, or a local government association under Article 12(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. The government agency under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is delegated by the Minister of Environment to collect parking fees from parking facilities in a national park under the Natural Parks Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, shall be deemed to be an agency for the State, a local government, or a local government association. The collection of parking fees shall be deemed to be a service to be provided as one of the proper purpose businesses

(2) Whether the Plaintiff’s parking lot operation business constitutes a tax-free business of the government agency organization

Article 106(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19329, the provision is clear that the “parking lot operation business” in the supply of goods and services provided by the government agency is excluded from value-added tax exemption. Although the duties concerning the use of the parking lot by the Plaintiff agency are not revised in accordance with superior laws and subordinate statutes, but still remains as tax-free projects under the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is subordinate laws and regulations, this is invalid as it is in violation of superior laws and regulations.

(3) Whether the principle of trust protection and the principle of equity are violated

In order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of the tax authorities in tax law, the tax authorities must name the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers; the tax authorities’ opinion list is justifiable and trust trust shall not be attributable to taxpayers; taxpayers shall trust the opinion list of the tax authorities; and the tax authorities shall conduct any act contrary to the above opinion list; and the tax authorities shall make a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, thereby infringing taxpayers’ interest. In this regard, regardless of the interpretation of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff’s interpretation that “the Local Public Enterprises Act is exempt from value-added tax on the fees received by the operators and users of the public parking lots” in the Local Public Enterprises Act shall be deemed to have been sufficiently attributable to the Plaintiff’s trust in this case after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

In addition, even if there is a difference between the parking lot operation business of a national park managed by the Mayor/Do Governor and the parking lot operation business of a national park managed by the Plaintiff, which is the government agency, in the imposition of value-added tax, considering the unique characteristics of the two agencies and the fact that the national park is managed by the Mayor/Do Governor seems to be an exceptional case, it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case to be illegal merely because the Plaintiff asserts.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)