[면허세부과처분취소][공1984.8.15.(734),1302]
(a) Cases where license tax-exempt practices for temporary use of harbor facilities are established;
B. The explicit intent of the tax authorities for the establishment of non-taxable practices (negative)
A. If the Defendant (the head of Busan Special Metropolitan City/Do) did not impose the license tax on the Plaintiff for the last four years until the enactment of the law that imposed the license tax on the temporary use of harbor facilities until the enactment of the law that imposed the license tax on the temporary use of harbor facilities, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff (the taxpayer) was unable to believe it. As such, the non-taxation practice was conducted. Therefore, the taxation imposed retroactively on the Plaintiff after the lapse of two years and six months since the repeal of the relevant law, which was 2 years and six months after the abolition of the relevant statute, is an unlawful disposition that disregards the
(b) For the purposes of establishing non-taxable practices, the tax authorities do not require the express speech or behavior that the taxation authority does not impose a taxation on the taxpayer.
Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes
B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu6 delivered on June 10, 1980, 82Nu130 delivered on September 27, 1983
Gyeong Fishery Corporation
Head of the Gu of Busan Metropolitan City;
Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu212 delivered on December 15, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, that the defendant had no single license tax imposed on the plaintiff for the last four years until the Act was enacted on December 31, 1974 and was repealed on December 30, 1978. Thus, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case, which was imposed retroactively on the plaintiff for two years after it was repealed on July 16, 1981, was an unlawful disposition that neglected the practice of tax administration, received by the taxpayer under Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which was applied mutatis mutandis under Article 65 of the Local Tax Act.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as to non-taxable practices such as theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu130 delivered on September 27, 1983). The theory that in order to establish non-taxable practices, the tax authority must make an explicit speech or behavior that the taxpayer does not impose tax on the taxpayer is not acceptable as its own opinion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu6 delivered on June 10, 1980). The argument is groundless.
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 on the bench.
Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)