[2] Criteria to determine whether tax authorities have a public opinion statement for the application of the good faith principle

[3] The case holding that the Minister of Health and Welfare may suggest that the name of opinion on the exemption from national and local taxes of the Minister of Health and Welfare is identical to that of the pertinent tax

[2] The principle of trust and good faith or the principle of speech and good faith is applicable to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that the protection of taxpayer's trust is consistent with the justice and equity even if it has made a sacrifice of the legality, and there are key elements of the legal principle in the protection of taxpayer's trust. Therefore, in determining whether a tax office, one of the above requirements, has a public opinion statement of the public opinion of the tax office, it shall not necessarily be subject to the formal authority of the administrative organization, but shall be determined by the substance in light of the person in charge's organizational position and duties, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility.

[3] The case holding that in case where the Minister of Health and Welfare announced that a person who established and operated a hospital lacking medical service, would not impose national taxes and local taxes when he announced that "the Minister of Home Affairs, or the Mayor/Do governor ordered the Do or Si/Gun to enact local tax reduction and exemption ordinances, and then expressed in advance the intention of approval of the ordinances, the name of the opinion of the above non-taxation, which was made by the Minister of Health and Welfare, shall be sufficient to see as the same as that of the pertinent tax authority, and as a taxpayer, it shall have a higher level of trust in the public notice that was made

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff newly constructed the building of this case as of November 6, 1989 after obtaining permission from the Governor of Gangwon-do to establish a medical institution and completed registration of preservation of ownership on February 27, 1991, and used it as the principal hall and dormitory of Hongcheon Hospital belonging to Hongcheon Hospital, and the defendant imposed a disposition on June 10, 1994 on the plaintiff on the ground that he is the owner of the building of this case as of May 1, 1994, the property tax of this case, urban planning tax, common facilities tax, and property tax of this case on the ground that he is the owner of the building of this case as of May 1, 1994. The court below determined that the defendant's disposition of this case was contrary to the principle of good faith and good faith under Article 65 of the Local Tax Act, Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on Education, even though the government expressed that it would be exempt from various local taxes for five years.

On October 20, 1986, the Government (the Minister of Health and Welfare at the time) published on the 29th of the same month a notice of application for the establishment and operator of a hospital lacking medical services by inviting applicants to establish and operate a hospital with government assistance in the area of 39 agricultural and fishing villages nationwide, including Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, and announced that an operator of a hospital which is a juristic person would provide a tax support with the contents of non-taxation of various local taxes, such as acquisition tax, property tax, registration tax, etc. for five years after the opening of the hospital, as well as corporate tax for five years after the opening of the hospital. In accordance with the above government policy, the Governor of Gangwon-do sent a public notice to the head of the Gun within the jurisdiction on two occasions, including November 3, 1986 and July 15, 1987, and ordered the head of the Gun concerned to provide all administrative support such as the reduction and exemption of registration tax, etc. in the Gun, while in Gangwon-do, it established the Ordinance on the establishment of medical facilities.

However, it rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the government, which is the tax authority, merely expressed taxpayers such as the Plaintiff, etc. the non-taxation of corporate tax; (b) did not agree on the non-taxation of national tax, such as other education tax; and (c) even if the government, which is not the tax authority, provided taxpayers such as the Plaintiff, etc. with various non-taxations, the tax authority or the Defendant did not agree to do so (the Governor of Gangwon-do ordered taxpayers such as the Plaintiff, etc. to establish the Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Si/Gun taxes, but did not provide taxpayers such as the Plaintiff, etc.) even though the government, which was the tax authority, provided various non-taxations (Do taxes

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax law relations, first, the tax authorities must express the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance, third, the taxpayer should act reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance, and fourth, the tax authorities' reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the above reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the result of infringing on the taxpayer's interest by making a disposition contrary to the reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the 's opinion' (Article 84Nu593, Apr. 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu5280, Oct. 10, 190; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9848).

However, the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of speech and behavior is applicable to cases where there are special circumstances that are deemed consistent with the justice and equity to protect the taxpayer's trust even if it sacrifices the legality, and there is a key element of the legal principle in the protection of the taxpayer's trust. Thus, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement by the tax authority, one of the above requirements, it does not necessarily necessarily lead to the formal authority of the administrative organization, but should be determined by the substance in light of the person in charge's organizational position and duties, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159 delivered on June 16, 195).

According to the records, according to the public announcement of the application of the founder and operator of a hospital with lacking medical service area No. 86-60, Oct. 28, 1986, the public announcement of the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced on Oct. 28, 1986, containing measures other than the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health and Welfare, such as financial support and other government/public land sales support necessary for the establishment of hospital, in addition to the above support by the government support. According to the order of the head of the Gun within the jurisdiction of the Gangwon-do as of Nov. 3, 1986, it is clear that the person who established a hospital in accordance with the government policy was in cooperation with the Ministry of Health and Welfare's direction for the revision of the ordinance for the reduction of registration tax/acquisition tax, etc., and at least it is sufficient that the opinion of the Minister of Health and Welfare on the reduction of local tax is not based on his own decision. Meanwhile, according to the opinion of the Minister of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Home Affairs's opinion that it is necessary to be approved or approval of the local council.

On the other hand, although the education tax is not explicitly indicated as non-taxation subject to the education tax, it is reasonable to view that the content of non-taxation on various local taxes is also included in the content of non-taxation on education tax, which is followed by the government's statement of view in light of the purpose of tax support for the founders and operators of hospitals lacking medical service.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether local taxes can be treated as the name of the taxable subject in the case of local taxes, and whether they should be included in the case of the education tax to be subject to the tax reduction or exemption, by examining the circumstances leading to the indication of the opinion regarding the tax reduction or exemption by the Minister of Health and Welfare. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had issued the non-taxation list, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the principle of good faith applicable to the tax law, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the requirements, and there

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is entirely reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)