[2] Criteria for the application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law in a tax lawsuit

[2] The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of legality under the principle of no taxation without law is only applicable to cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the person liable for tax payment sacrifices the legality of the law. In particular, in cases where the person liable for tax payment commits an act contrary to his past speech and behavior against the tax authority, he shall be subject to deprivation of benefits, such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, various additional taxes, penalties under tax law, etc., and the tax authority shall have the right to on-site investigation in a superior position against the taxpayer, and the burden of proving the legality of the tax disposition is in principle against the tax authority, the application of the principle of good faith to the taxpayer shall be extremely limited

1. As to the second ground for appeal

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the court below determined that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 and two others"), who are the plaintiff's children, for the transfer of ownership on the land of the forest, exercised his right as the owner, such as managing and disposing of the above land even after the transfer registration on the ground of donation was completed, and that the plaintiff managed the real estate of this case acquired through the sale price of the substitute land, and that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had the right to dispose of the real estate of this case under title trust called "the non-party 1 and the non-party 2", the plaintiff prepared and delivered a written agreement and a written statement to the effect that the plaintiff had the right to dispose of the real estate of this case under the title trust of the plaintiff, which was the real right holder, until the grace period under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name expires, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the sale sale price of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to donation, violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of legality under the principle of no taxation without law shall only be applied to cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the person liable for tax payment sacrifices the legality of the law. In particular, in cases where the person liable for tax payment commits an act contrary to his past speech and behavior against the tax authority, it shall be subject to a disadvantageous disposition, such as deprivation of benefits, such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, various additional taxes, penalty under tax law, etc., and the tax authority shall have the right to on-site investigation in the superior position to the taxpayer, and the burden of proof of the legality of the tax disposition is against the tax authority in principle, the application of the principle of good faith to the taxpayer shall be extremely limited and shall not be expanded and interpreted (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18383, Mar. 20,

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership based on donation was against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of no speech, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership based on donation was made by Nonparty 1 and two persons including Nonparty 1 while paying and paying gift tax on the land in large forest, and that there was no disclosure of title trust in the lawsuit disputing a disposition of increase or correction by the tax authorities on the above gift tax, and that there was a document prepared and submitted a statement confirming the fact of gift in the future to Nonparty 1 and other two persons including Nonparty 1 in the process of undergoing the tax investigation. However, the above circumstance alone argues that in the lawsuit of this case seeking a cancellation of the gift tax imposed on the real estate in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership based on the title trust, including Nonparty 1, etc., was made

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)