2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff is an organization with the aim of fostering sublime spirit as the descendants of the Nonparty, who is the 10th grandchildren of the Hannam-si, the Hannam-si, and of managing and preserving the lave property, and is the co-ownership owner of the land listed in the attached Table 1, and is the owner of a wooden room constructed on the ground of the above land (hereinafter “instant wooden room”).

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that each of the instant real estate constitutes “real estate used by an organization for religious and religious purposes,” subject to non-taxation or exemption from property tax under Article 186 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11138, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) did not impose tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes “real estate used by an organization for religious and religious purposes,” while undergoing a regular audit on a around April 2013 by the Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Affairs and Daegu Office, a clan was not an organization for religious and religious purposes, which is exempt from property tax under the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act; and (c) disposed of local education tax on March 14, 2014 through 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including the number with each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 186 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 186 of the same Act) which provides for non-taxation, such as property tax, for the purpose of religious, religious, charity, academic, art, and other public services, is deleted by the full amendment of the Local Tax Act, and Article 50(2) of the newly established Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides for the real estate used directly by the organization for religious and religious purposes as the object of exemption from property tax, so that the owner of the property is a non-profit entrepreneur and the public interest of the pertinent business should not be the requirements for exemption from property tax. Accordingly, unlike the time when the former Local Tax Act was applied, the property tax on the religious room used directly by the organization for religious purposes by the enforcement of the former Special Local Tax Act, which became a clan in 2014, on each of the instant real estate, including the religious room used directly by the plaintiff for religious services, or on each of the tax laws and regulations in question, which were based on the principle of no no taxation without law.

B. The Defendant, which did not impose property tax, etc. on each of the instant real estate for a long time, was in violation of the principle of good faith (the principle of trust and good faith) by imposing property tax in 2009 or 2013.

C. The Defendant did not properly investigate the actual size, construction year, etc. of the instant building, which is an unauthorized building, and imposed tax on the basis of the drilling. This is against the principle of base taxation.

3. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 3] The entry is as specified in the relevant statutes.

4. Determination

(a) In cases of the imposition of property tax, etc. for the year 2009 and the year 2010 among the dispositions of this case;

1) Article 186 of the former Local Tax Act provides that "real estate directly used by a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree for religious, religious, charity, academic, art and crafts and other public services shall be one of the real estate on which no property tax is imposed, and Article 136 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sep. 20, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the term "non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 186 (1) 1 of the Act refers to a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed in Article 79," and Article 79 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act provides that "the organization for religious and religious purposes is "the non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree", and therefore, it is reasonable to view that an organization for religious and religious purposes receives non-taxation benefits at the same time as a non-profit entrepreneur for religious and religious purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu94, etc.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s clan is an organization with the primary purpose of maintaining and preserving the worship of the ancestor and the management and preservation of the property of the literature, and since it cannot be deemed a non-profit public business entity, it cannot be deemed that it is an organization for religious and religious purposes under Article 79(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act.

2) The imposition of taxes is based on the provisions of the Act in force at the time of establishment of tax liability. Even in the case of an amendment of tax-related Acts, barring any special circumstance, the statutes at the time of establishment of tax liability among the Acts and subordinate statutes before and after the amendment shall apply, barring any special circumstance, barring Articles 2, 5, and 3 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010) pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10220, Mar. 31, 2010), the imposition of property tax for the year 209 and the year 2010 shall be imposed by applying the former Local Tax Act.

3) In administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, and have committed any act that is similar to that of the administrative agency. However, just because the Defendant did not impose a tax on each of the instant real estate for a given period, it cannot be deemed that the administrative agency’s official opinion was given, and the Plaintiff did not engage in any act trusted by the Plaintiff.

4) In light of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 5’s purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that a public official belonging to the defendant was replaced by the removal room of this case on December 9, 2013 and measured the area, etc., and that the removal room of this case was completed on or around May 1990 through the “construction cost” located near the removal room of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant imposed tax on the drilling without properly investigating the actual area, construction year, etc. of the removal room of this case.

5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing the illegality of the disposition of imposition, including the property tax for the year 2009 and the year 2010 among each of the dispositions of this case, is without merit.

B. Cases of imposition of property tax, etc. for the year 201 through 2013 among the dispositions in the instant case

1) As a matter of principle, the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, so it should be interpreted that objective validity should be clarified, and as much as possible, it should be ensured that legal stability would not be undermined by maintaining consistency with all the people as possible. Moreover, since positive law is established in consideration of a universal and typical matter, it is also required to interpret that the law can be most reasonable and reasonable in applying the law in various cases that occur in society reality. In short, the purpose of statutory interpretation should be to find concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law. Furthermore, the legislative intent and purpose of the law, the history of its enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, and the relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes, so that it can no longer conform to the request of the interpretation of the law as seen earlier, even if there is no need for systematic and logical interpretation of the law as a matter of principle, and there is no need to interpret the meaning and purpose of the law in question.

2) Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides that “Real estate directly used by a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the purpose of religious, religious, charity, academic, art and other public services shall be exempt from property tax.” Since Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides that “Real estate directly used by an organization for religious and religious purposes shall be exempted from property tax.” On January 1, 2011, the Local Tax Act is completely amended and the Special Local Tax Act is enacted and implemented on the same day, which is a single legal system, to realize fair taxation by systematically managing local tax reduction and exemption, by prescribing the provisions on tax exemption and reduction in order to promote specialization and system of each field of the former Local Tax Act, and the tax exemption and reduction ordinances with strong characteristics of reduction and exemption by each item of the local government (see the grounds for enactment of the Special Local Tax Restriction Act).” Thus, it does not seem to have intentionally deducted the requirements for public service in order to expand the scope of property tax exemption (see the grounds for enactment).

3) However, according to the principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, unless there are special circumstances, regardless of the tax requirements or non-taxation requirements or tax exemption requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004; 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004). Unlike Article 50(2) of the former Local Tax Act Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the law provides that "real estate used directly by an organization for the purpose of the institution for the institution's intention" is "real estate used directly for the relevant business." Despite the absence of any content that the organization is an organization for the purpose of public business, it is reasonable to deem that it is not, in principle, permissible for a judge to add "public business" to the necessary requirements for the exemption of property

4) In addition, according to Article 50 of Chapter 2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the term “exemption to religious and memorial organizations” under Article 50, “exemption to religious and religious services” under Article 51, “special exemption to cultural and artistic support” under Article 52, “special exemption to social organizations, etc.” under Article 53, “special exemption to tourism and tourism complexes, etc.” under Article 54, “special exemption to cultural property” under Article 55, and “special exemption to cultural property” under Article 55, respectively. In particular, under Article 54, the aforementioned provisions do not directly require public service nature as a requirement for local tax exemption or special exemption. In light of the purport of Article 50 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, it is difficult to interpret that a person who conducts a private business without the purpose of public service as a developer of a tourism complex or a hotel business for the purpose of supporting culture, tourism, etc., and thus, it is difficult to directly interpret the property tax of a religious organization for the purpose of denying religious services, such as property tax exemption or public service.”

5) As seen earlier, when the Plaintiff clan is an organization whose purpose is to arrange for the worship, etc., it appears that the entire purport of the pleadings was added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5. Since the Plaintiff clan constructed around May 190 for the religious services, it is evident that each of the instant real estate is a building being used for the religious services until now since the Plaintiff clan was built for the religious services, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that each of the instant real estate constitutes "real estate used directly by an organization for religious services" under Article 50 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.

6) Therefore, notwithstanding the grounds, etc. for the enactment of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a clan for the purpose of the preparation, etc. of the mediation is included in the “organization for the purpose of the preparation of the mediation, etc.” under Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act. Therefore, the imposition of property tax for the year 201 through 2013 out of each of the dispositions of

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendant's appeal.

[Attachment List, etc. omitted]

Judges Park Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)