2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On July 2, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) was a business operator who registered the wholesale/trade business by setting the items and types of business; (b) filed a final return on the first value-added tax in 2009 with the Defendant; and (c) filed an application for refund of value-added tax KRW 11,03,000 on the export portion of the duty-free goods, such as

B. Accordingly, after conducting on-site investigation from August 10, 2009 to August 14, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on-site investigation was conducted by the Plaintiff on October 16, 2009 on the grounds that the Plaintiff received an input tax deduction without filing a report on waiver of tax exemption under Article 47 of the Value-Added Tax Act; (b) on-site investigation for the second period period from 2004 to 1st year 2009, 5,454,180; (c) the first period from 2005, 5,265,680; (d) the second period from 205, 6,759, 910; (e) the first period from 2006, 5,164, 2006, 208, 360, 208, 207, 2008, 206, 2008, 2007, 3637, 2068.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff filed a waiver of value-added tax exemption in relation to the export of agricultural products while exporting Pacific, an agricultural product overseas, but the relevant documents have been lost or discarded after the lapse of the document preservation period in accordance with Article 85-3(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 31(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and each of the dispositions of this case on the premise different

2) From 2002 to 2008, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount without any objection while reviewing the Plaintiff’s refund of value-added tax. This constitutes an implied public expression by the tax authority that recognizes the input tax deduction on the premise of waiver of tax exemption, and thus, the taxation practice following the waiver of tax exemption under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes should be deemed to have been constituted. In addition, each disposition of this case violates the principle of good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

3) The Defendant unduly infringed the right to receive tax experts’ assistance in the tax investigation with respect to the preparation of a written confirmation of non-submission of tax exemption (proof No. 1). Each of the instant dispositions based on the premise of the above written confirmation is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

With respect to the Plaintiff’s filing of the waiver of tax exemption, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s filing of the waiver of tax exemption. Rather, in the following circumstances recognized by each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including provisional parcel number circulation) of B, namely, from July 1, 2002 to August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff’s filing of the waiver of tax exemption is not confirmed in the status of civil petitions by each taxpayer on the National Tax Integration System, which is the computerized data managed by the Defendant, from July 1, 2002 to August 31, 2009, respectively, the Plaintiff’s filing of the waiver of tax exemption exemption report is not accompanied by the Plaintiff’s filing of the establishment report and the application for the waiver of tax exemption. The Plaintiff’s filing of the waiver of tax exemption report after the commencement of business on July 2, 2002, was not subject to the exemption of value-added tax for each quarter of value-added tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(ii)As to the second argument:

(a)First, examine whether the practices of national tax administration have been established;

Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an interpretation of tax-related Acts or practices in tax administration accepted by a taxpayer generally means, even if erroneous interpretation or practices are made, it reaches the extent that it is not unreasonable for a taxpayer to trust such interpretation or practices by an unspecified general taxpayer, who is not a specific taxpayer. In order to establish such non-taxation practices, there is an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period of time, and the tax authority must have an intention not to impose tax due to any special circumstance even though it knows that the tax can be imposed on the matter, so the above public opinion can also be acknowledged in cases where the situation of non-taxation continues over a long period of time (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du15350, Dec. 24, 2009).

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in light of the foregoing facts: (a) in the case of an exporter engaged in the export business in the wholesale/trade sector, the refund of input tax due to the application of zero-rate tax; (b) the Plaintiff’s refund of value-added tax constitutes a relatively small amount; and (c) the Plaintiff is a person eligible for early refund who would refund the refund tax amount within 15 days after the filing deadline for the return of value-added tax; (d) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff’s non-declaration of tax exemption; and (e) it cannot be said that the national tax administration practices that recognized input tax exemption due to any

B) Next, I examine the argument of violation of the principle of good faith.

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of the tax authorities in tax and legal relations, the tax authorities should name the public opinion list that is the object of trust to taxpayers, the tax authorities should not be responsible for the taxpayer to believe that the name of the opinion list is justifiable, and the taxpayer must trust the opinion list and act in what manner the name of the opinion is, and the tax authorities should make disposition against the above opinion list to infringe on the taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29, 2009).

On the instant case, it is difficult to view that there was a public opinion, such as the Plaintiff’s declaration of waiver of tax exemption solely on the ground that the Defendant deducteds the Plaintiff from input tax without raising any objection from 2002 to 2008, and insofar as the Plaintiff did not report the waiver of tax exemption to the Defendant, it cannot be said that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(iii)As to the third argument:

There is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s right to receive tax experts’ assistance at the time of on-site investigation. Rather, according to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8 and the pleadings, the Defendant can only recognize the fact that the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s right to receive tax experts’ assistance, stating the Plaintiff’s representative director’s right to receive tax experts’ assistance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that tax experts' right to receive assistance is infringed is without merit.

3.In conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.