1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. The plaintiff was registered as a business operator for business management counseling from the defendant to October 31, 1990 with the trade name of the International Industrial Training Institute for Industrial Management from August 1, 1988 to October 31, 1990, and operated the business of supplying such services after being requested by each domestic company to improve the awareness of his/her employees, conduct divisional activities, conduct field managers, conduct vocational education, conduct vocational education for employees, conduct vocational education for new employees, conduct vocational education for women. The defendant confirmed that on July 16, 1992, the plaintiff deemed the business operator under Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and was subject to the disposition of the value-added tax in this case for the value of the service provided in 190.

B. On August 1, 198, the defendant issued the business registration certificate to the plaintiff on August 1, 198, and issued the business registration certificate designating the plaintiff as the value-added tax-free business operator, and the plaintiff did not provide guidance, guidance, demand, or impose a disposition on the tax payment of value-added tax even at the same time during the business period of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful (which seems to violate the principle of trust and good faith).

C. On August 1, 198, the Plaintiff acquired the business that the Nonparty had operated with the trade name of the International Industrial Training Institute, and completed the registration of the business in the Mana on the same day, and operated the above business until October 31, 1990 after obtaining a business registration certificate from the Defendant, which became a business consultation, and during the Plaintiff’s above business period, the Defendant did not provide information, guidance, demand, or impose a disposition of value-added tax payment. However, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as a value-added tax-free business operator. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have issued the Plaintiff a business registration certificate that became a business consultation, or the Plaintiff did not provide guidance, demand, or impose a disposition of imposition of value-added tax at one time during the above business period, only one year and nine months after the Plaintiff’s closure of the business, and the Plaintiff did not report the tax payment of value-added tax, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated Article 18 and Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

2. According to the evidence No. 6 (Business Registration Certificate), the defendant can be aware that the defendant issued a business registration certificate to the plaintiff for the tax-exempt who provided business consultation. Since the tax authority registered as a tax-free business, it does not designate as a tax-free business. Thus, the tax authority registered as a tax-free business and on the other hand, it cannot be said that the tax authority imposed tax on the other hand as a tax-free business.

3. In addition, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff has been engaged in the business of providing training, education, etc. to the employees by the domestic companies, it is difficult to view that the supply of such services constitutes "services supplied by the operators of counseling centers, etc." under Article 12 (1) 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 35 subparagraph 2 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provide tax-free services. Thus, the judgment of the court below to this purport is acceptable. However, if the plaintiff registered as tax-free business and received the registration certificate from the tax authority within a reasonable period of time when the tax authority did not inform, guide, demand, or impose the value-added tax payment within a reasonable period of time, the plaintiff's business as a counseling center can be argued as a counseling center in this case.

4. However, the record reveals that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service made a reply that the provision of the above training and education services at the Plaintiff’s workplace constitutes a business management consultation (No. 7-1, 2, income standard rate and time table). The plaintiff trusted the above opinion that the provision of the above training and education services at the Plaintiff’s workplace constitutes a business management consultation business, and did not collect or pay the value-added tax after completing the registration as a tax-free business operator, and the plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax. Accordingly, the above meeting of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service explicitly expressed the public opinion that the provision of the above services constitutes a business consultation business, and if the above business operator did not collect or pay the value-added tax at the time of subsequent transactions in accordance with the opinion of the tax authority, it is difficult to say that there is a reason for the violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's provision of the above services to the contrary to the previous opinion that the defendant did not constitute the business of this case.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the trust and good faith in the performance of duties by a tax official, and the arguments are with merit to this extent.

Therefore, the judgment below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)