2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence of 1 to 9, Eul evidence of 1, Eul evidence of 1 to 4 (including each number).

A. On June 1, 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application for business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act with the director of the Busan District Tax Office for business registration, and filed a report for business registration to the director of the Busan District Tax Office on October 4, 1995 as "free occupation" and "other free occupations" and received a business registration certificate for the duty-free entrepreneur.

나. 원고는 2002. 1.경 주식회사 OO QQQ 수련원과 사이에 수련활동 교육진행 및 레크리에이션 행사진행에 관한 운영계약을 체결한 후 위 회사로부터 사업장 소재지를 경주로 변경하고 주종목도 사업내용에 맞게 변경할 것을 권고받고 2003. 1.경 원고의 세무기장업무를 맡고 있던 피고 전AA에게 사업자등록증의 내용변경에 관한 업무를 위임하였다.

"C. Accordingly, the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant Jeon-A on January 28, 2003 that the location of the racing office is "P 00-0 of Dong 00-0."

업태를 '서비스업', 종목을 '청소년수련교육'으로 하는 사업자등록정정신고를 하여, 같은 날 경주세무서장으로부터 면세사업자용 사업자등록증을 교부받았다.",라. 원고는 위 QQQ 수련원 내 수련활동 교육 프로그램진행 및 행사진행에 관한 용역(이하 '이 사건 용역'이라 한다)을 제공하여 그 대가를 지급받았으나, 면세사업자라는 이유로 부가가치세를 신고 ・ 납부하지 아니하였다.

E. On October 1, 2010, the director of the subsequent racing tax office decided and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition imposing value-added tax amounting to KRW 98,60,574 on the amount of income from January 2005 to June 2010, on the ground that the instant service is subject to value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고로부터 사업자등록증의 내용변경에 관한 업무를 위임받은 피고 전AA은 원고와 주식회사 OO QQQ 수련원과의 용역계약서 내용을 파악한 다음 세법규정에 따라 적법하게 사업자등록증 재발급 업무를 수행하여야 함에도 이를 게을리 하여 원고를 면세사업자로 신고하였고, 피고 대한민국 소속인 경주세무서 담당공무원은 원고가 제출한 서류를 면밀히 검토하여 원고의 사업자등록증 신청사업이 면세대상인지 과세대상인지 여부를 정확하게 판단한 다음 그에 따라 적법하게 사업자등록증을 발급하여야 할 의무가 있음에도 불구하고 이를 게을리한채 면세사업자로 사업자등록증을 교부하는 바람에 원고가 이 사건 용역의 대가를 지급받으면서 부가가치세를 별도로 지급받지 아니하여 결국 이 사건 처분으로 납부하게 될 부가가치세 상당의 손해를 입게 되었으므로, 피고들은 연대하여 원고에게 위 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다.

B. Determination

First, in relation to the claims against Defendant Jeon-A, each of the evidence and witness KimB submitted by the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to serve as a duty-free business operator as alleged by the Plaintiff. It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant Jeon-A filed a final report of business registration as if the Plaintiff were a duty-free business operator by intention or negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jeon-A is without merit.

Next, as to the assertion on Defendant Republic of Korea, the tax authority should first apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's act in the tax law relationship, first, the tax authority should name the public opinion list subject to trust to the taxpayer. Second, the taxpayer's trust in the tax authority's opinion list is not attributable to the taxpayer. Third, the taxpayer should trust his opinion list and engage in what is the taxpayer's interest. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above opinion list is against the above opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29). In addition, the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142, Dec. 30, 2006) legislative purpose is to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and secure it. This is merely a business fact that the tax authority has to issue the registration certificate to the Plaintiff by submitting it to the head of the tax office under its jurisdiction, and thus, the public official in charge of issuing the registration certificate can not be issued.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.