[2] Requirements for the application of the principle of good faith or the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 5(2) of the Customs Act, and the burden of proving the existence of non-taxable practice (=taxpayer)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. As to the tariff classification in accordance with the Tariff Schedules

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidences, and held that "the goods of this case are "digital communications equipment" as a super-high speed Internet communications equipment, and this constitutes not only the item number K K 8517.80 but also the item number of HS 8517.50 in accordance with the attached Schedules of Tariff under Article 7 (1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305, Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter "former Customs Act"). In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are justified. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the classification of exported and imported goods.

B. As to the conflict of tariff classification standards

Article 2 of the former Regulations on Customs Duties under the Agreement of the World Trade Organization (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17048 of Dec. 29, 2000), which was enacted upon delegation of Article 43-8(3) of the former Customs Act, the tariff concession tariff rate table prescribed by the attached Table of Article 2 of the former Regulations on Tariffs under the Agreement of the World Trade Organization (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17048 of Dec. 29, 200) is not to set the tariff concession rate separately based on the tariff classification under the tariff concession rate

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on tariff classification standards.

C. As to the illegality of the modified tariff classification

The assertion that the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service’s modification of the tariff classification for the instant goods is against Article 84 of the Customs Act that the modification of the tariff classification for the instant goods causes the modification of the tariff rate and is in violation of Article 84 of the Customs Act is not only a new assertion in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, but also a modification of the tariff classification for the instant goods under Article 87 of the Customs Act (Article 7-2(5) of the former Customs Act) and the modification of the tariff classification for the instant goods is a modification of the tariff classification for the specific goods under Article 87 of the Customs Act. Since the Minister of Finance and Economy needs to modify the tariff classification system by recommendation or decision by the Customs Cooperation Council under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System or

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The principle of good faith, Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 5(2) of the Customs Act (Article 2-2(2) of the former Customs Act) apply only to cases where there are special circumstances in which the protection of taxpayer’s trust is deemed to correspond to the justice even if the principle of legality is sacrificed. The interpretation of the tax-related Act or the practice of national tax administration generally accepted by taxpayers under the same provision refers to cases where erroneous interpretation or practice is accepted by a general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer, but a specific taxpayer, without objection, to the extent that it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust such interpretation or practice. The mere fact that there was a public opinion on the standards of interpretation of the tax-related Act does not necessarily mean that there exists such interpretation or practice. The burden of proof on such interpretation or practice exists on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu13670, Sep. 8, 192; 200Du1725, Jan. 27, 2002).

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below held that " even if the defendant received the payment of customs duties and value-added taxes on the goods of this case from the plaintiff and received the decision of tariff classification from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service at the prior request, and refunded customs duties and value-added taxes already paid according to the decision, the disposition of this case, which collected the customs duties and value-added taxes, etc. paid in accordance with the tariff classification modification, shall not be contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation concerning non-taxation practice." In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and determination are justified. The court below did

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)