2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. As a general taxi transport business entity, Plaintiff DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff DD”) was declared and paid by applying Article 106-7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10285, May 14, 2010) and Plaintiff SSS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff SS”) for the second period of 2010 and Article 106-7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011) to the first period of 2010.

B. The Intervenor of the head of the Dong Daegu Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) notified the Defendants that part of the value-added tax reduced in the above taxable period was wrongfully used (for the purpose other than the retirement allowance) (this evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2).

C. Accordingly, on February 3, 2012 and March 9, 2012, the head of the tax office of the Dong Daegu notified Plaintiff DD to correct the value-added tax as indicated in the following list, and on January 13, 2012, the head of the tax office of the Nam Daegu issued the notice of correction of the value-added tax on Plaintiff SS, the amount of value-added tax 11,317,520, and the amount of value-added tax 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

Details of imposition; and

Taxation Period

Unjust Reduction Tax Amount

(Amount reflected in retirement allowances)

The Disposition of this case

(Unfair Reduction Tax Amount)

+ Additional Tax)

DDD

March 9, 2012

Daegu

The head of a tax office

1, 2007

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

February 3, 2012

207 Second Period

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

1, 2008

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

Second Period, 2008

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

1, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

Second Period, 2009

OOOE

OOOE

DDD

1, 2010

OOOE

OOOE

Total

OOOE

SSS

January 13, 2012

Daegu

The head of a tax office

2010 Second Period

OOOE

OOOE

SSS

September 3, 2012

1, 2011

OOOE

OOOE

Total

OOOE

D. The Plaintiffs filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on March 14, 2012, while Plaintiff DD was subject to each dismissal ruling on May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff SS was subject to each dismissal ruling on April 23, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 31, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Claim that the amount of value-added tax reduced may be used for increased retirement allowances

According to the labor-management agreement, the Plaintiffs used money equivalent to the reduced value-added tax amount during the above taxable period (hereinafter referred to as “the reduced tax amount in this case”) in full to increase the wages such as the basic pay for the worker’s work on board, and to pay the retired worker the increased retirement allowance which inevitably entails the wage increase to the wage increase. It is clear that such use falls under the use for the purpose of improving the treatment and improvement of the workers’ welfare, and it is not used for the part that was borne by the employer before the reduction of the value-added tax, or for the improvement of the welfare and employer’s management, and labor union operation expenses.

With respect to the plaintiff DDR, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation enacted on April 2005 applies the "Guidelines for Use of Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the Tax Reduction for the previous Guidelines 2. The basic principles of implementation plan of the previous Guidelines 2.

The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs revised on July 2010 by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Guidelines") applies to the plaintiff SS, and the revised guidelines do not provide that the "decision is made in a comparative and prudent manner by comparing and reviewing whether the retirement allowances are reflected in the previous guidelines." However, it would result in compelling the employer to pay the increased amount of retirement allowances to be newly borne by the reduction of value-added tax, which would result in compelling the employer to pay the amount of money that is not legally obligated by law, so the amount of the reduced tax in this case is still illegal.

Therefore, each of the instant dispositions by the Defendants, based on the premise that the amount of the reduced tax in this case cannot be used for the increased amount of retirement allowances, is unlawful.

2) The assertion that it violates the principle of good faith

"The intervenor required to report the amount of the reduced tax in this case in accordance with the form of "A" (Evidence 5-4), which includes the items reflected in the amount of the retirement allowance (amount of settlement) under the premise that the amount of the reduced tax in this case is used as the amount of the retirement allowance, and prior to each disposition in this case, the plaintiffs did not impose any sanction on the use of the reduced amount of the value-added tax as the amount of the retirement allowance as the amount of the retirement allowance, and each disposition in this case made under the premise that the use of the reduced amount of the tax in this case is illegal."

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Implementation of the VAT reduction and exemption system for general taxi transport business entities

A) Article 100-2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act amended by Act No. 4952 on August 4, 1995 introduced a system that reduces 50/100 of the value-added tax payable for a general taxi transport business entity, who is a person obligated to pay value-added tax, to use it as financial resources for wage in order to improve the poor treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers.

- A retiring shall pay an amount calculated by the method of daily calculation of working days, etc. when the amount is settled, such as retirement pay.

•Where some of the reduced tax amounts are used for improvement in treatment

- Workers' self-determination of the use, method, etc. of reduced tax amount within the improvement of treatment and welfare

- The representative of the majority of workers shall submit to the employer documents with the consent of more than a majority of its employees;

- The employer shall implement the requirements of workers to the extent that it does not go against the intent of the legislation, and the specific implementation plan shall be decided in consultation with the

-the user shall manage separate spending books to enhance transparency in the use of the reduced amount of duty.

- Settlement of accounts of the amounts paid until then after the final return under Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act is completed.

〇 금지사항

· Prohibition of users’ use of reduced amounts in the following parts:

- Use in the part that had been borne by the employer before the reduction of the value of the surtax;

* Cases: Driving clothes, establishment anniversary and life saving gifts, camping fees, veterinary subscription fees, etc.

- For the welfare of employees in management service who are not workers;

* Cases: Support for school expenses, support for prestigious bonuses or futures, food expenses, etc.

-j for the improvement of business management of users

* case: light survey expenses, insurance premium payments, vehicle purchase. LPG subsidies, three equipment installation, wastewater treatment, qualification notice, accident processing expenses, call center operation expenses, etc.

- Subsidization of trade union operating expenses, etc.

* case: Fees for the president of a cooperative, expenses for activities, operation of a labor union office, expenses for construction of a labor union office, etc.

C) After December 30, 2006, Article 106-4(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006, "the Minister of Construction and Transportation" added the use in which "the total amount of reduced tax for general taxi transport business operators is not used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi transport business operators within six months from the end of the payment period for the report of the value-added tax reduced."

D) Meanwhile, Article 106-7(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended by Act No. 10285 on May 14, 2010 shortens the timing of use of the reduced tax amount to "within one month from the end of the payment deadline for the final return of value-added tax to be reduced," and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs notified local governments, the Federation of Korea Passenger Transport Business Associations, etc. of the revised guidelines, reflecting the contents of the above amended Act, and the main contents are as follows.

1. Supplementary background;

〇 조세특례제한법의 개정(2010. 5. 14.)으로 부가가치세 경감액의 지급방법이 개성됨에 따라 「택시부가세 경감세액 사용지침」을 법 개정취지에 부합되도록 개정한 것임

Classification

Category Before 3

General Terms and Conditions

Jinay

Time of Payment

Payment within six months from the expiration date of the deadline for the return and payment of surcharges;

Payment within one month from the end of the deadline for the final return of surtax;

From July 1, 2010, the reduction of the tax period to which July 1, 201 belongs

Method of payment

Cash payment: Provided, That it shall not be paid in cash in accordance with the labor-management agreement.

Full Cash Payment

2 Contents of the guidelines

〇 일반택시운송사업자는 부가세 확정신고 납부기한 종료일로부터 1개월 이내에 운수종사자에게 전액 현금지급 원칙

- Under the agreement of workers and workers, the payment can be made in advance each month even before the end of the deadline for the final return of the value added tax.

-as basic pay and allowances, if agreed upon by workers and doctors;

〇 지급기준

•Method of payment: A taxi transportation business entity shall pay the full amount of the surtax reduction to all taxi workers engaged in the taxable period, and shall indicate that the tax reduction is the amount of surtax reduction by the method of daily calculation based on the number of working days.

3. Administrative matters.

〇 종전 「택시 부가세 경감세액 사용지침('05.4.)」은 폐지하고 이 지침으로 대체하며

• This Guidelines shall apply from the amount of value-added tax reduced for the taxable period to which July 1, 2010 belongs pursuant to Article 4 (5.14.) of the Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

2) Progress of agreement between the OOO-si taxi transport business association and the OO local headquarters of the OO-si Workers' Union

OOsi-si taxi transport business associations (hereinafter referred to as "cab transport business associations") and the Korean Head Office of the Daegu-gu District Headquarters of the Korea taxi trade union (hereinafter referred to as "trade union") have entered into a labor-management agreement with the following contents for the reduction of value-added tax.

Date of agreement

Details of agreement

February 10, 1996

The reduced amount of value-added tax shall not be included in the wage standard table of drivers, but shall be included in the calculation of retirement pay. 000 won per unit agreed between the taxi transport business association and the representatives of both taxi trade unions among the reduced amount of value-added tax and the amount collected by the employer to the taxi transport business association shall be dealt with after consultation with the taxi trade union (No. 7-4).

March 18, 2004

Of the reduced amount of value-added tax from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006, 000 won per month from among the reduced amount of value-added tax for each worker (Franchisium: 000 won per annum, regional main part: 000 won) shall be paid to the Development Fund and the Policy Fund of the Daegu Regional Headquarters, and the remainder of the reduced amount shall be included in the wages, such as basic pay, work on board, good faith allowances, retirement allowances, etc., and shall not raise any objection among the parties concerned (Evidence 7 1, 2 of the Evidence 7).

October 8, 2005

① From June 20, 2002, a driving engineer’s wage standard table (2002) set up a separate provision of welfare expenses (amount reduced) at the end of the wage standard table of the driver’s wage engineer, 58,000 won out of the amount of reduction of the value-added tax agreed to be implemented. ② From April 1, 2004 (204), from April 1, 2004, a driving engineer’s wage standard table included 58,00 won in the amount of reduction of the value-added tax under the above paragraph (1) in the amount of reduction of the value-added tax (including 58,00 won in the amount of reduction of the value-added tax and the number of working days) is currently being implemented by agreement to pay (3).

March 31, 2007

The total amount of value-added tax reduced is included in the total amount of indirect charges such as basic pay, work allowances, good faith allowances, etc., so no objection is raised among them (No. 7-5).

September 3, 2009

The reduced portion of value-added tax, which was enforced from January 2009, shall be included in the total amount of the basic pay, work allowances, good faith allowances, etc., and thus no objection shall be raised among themselves: Provided, That with respect to the 40% of the additional reduced portion from January 2009 to August 2009, the minimum wage shortage shall be preserved only for the amount of wages for August 2009 ( September 10), among the eight-month portion ( September 10), and the remaining amount shall be paid in installments from September 10 ( October 10) for five months.

-one percent (000%) of the reduced value-added tax which has been paid until now out of 00 percent of the reduced value-added tax which has been enforced in January 2009 and 00 percent (000), which has been additionally reduced or exempted, are included in wages, and do not raise any objection among themselves, except that if the remainder other than the amount included in the wages of the reduced value-added tax has occurred, it shall be paid in cash at the monthly wage for each quarter (7).

3) The record that the plaintiffs used the reduced amount of this case as retirement benefit reflect amount

A) Details of Plaintiff DD’s payment of retirement allowance reserve and retirement allowance

Sector

C.

The number of wage payments

The amount of the retirement allowance reserve;

The number of persons paid as retirement allowances.

2007

1 1

207.1

56.Namemen

207.2

60 persons

207.3

59.Namemen

OOO(28 persons)

207.4

59.Namemen

OOO(29 persons)

OOO(one person)

207.5

56.Namemen

OOO(28 persons)

207.6

5.Name 55

OOO (30 persons)

Sub-committees

OOOOwon

OOOE

2007

2. 2

207.7

53 persons

OOO (32 persons)

8, 2007

56.Namemen

OOO (34 persons)

OOO(one person)

207.9

58.Namemen

OOO (34 persons)

oly 2007.10

61 person

OOO (37 persons)

OOO(one person)

November 2007

62 persons, persons

OOO (37 persons)

December 2, 2007

63 persons

OOO (39 persons)

OOO(one person)

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

208

1 1

208.10

OOOE

208.208

OOOE

208.3.0

OOOE

208.40

OOOE

208.5

OOOE

6, 208

OOOE

OOOwon (two persons)

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

208

2. 2

208.7

OOOE

OOO(one person)

208.8

OOOE

OOO(one person)

208.9

OOOE

OOOwon (two persons)

oly 208.10

OOOE

OOO(one person)

1, 208

OOOE

OOO(one person)

208.12

OOOE

OOOwon (five persons)

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

209

1 1

209.1.

OOOE

OOOwon (two persons)

209.20

OOOE

OOOwon (two persons)

209.3.

OOOE

209.4

OOOE

OOO(one person)

209.5

OOOE

209.6

OOOE

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

209

2. 2

209.7

OOOE

OOOO(three persons)

209.8

OOOE

OOOwon (six persons)

209.99

OOOE

OOOwon (two persons)

209.10

64 persons

OOO (32 persons)

OOO(one person)

November 2009

63 persons

OOO (36 persons)

209.12

61 person

OOO (39 persons)

OOOwon (two persons)

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

2010 1

January 2010

60 persons

OOO (39 persons)

OOO(one person)

2010.20

60 persons

OOO (40 persons)

3, 2010.3

61 person

OOO (41 persons)

OOOO(four persons)

4, 2010.4

54 persons, each of whom

OOO (38 persons)

OOOwon (two persons)

May 2010

53 persons

OOO(36 persons)

OOOwon (two persons)

June 2010

57.Namemen

OOO (34 persons)

OOOO(three persons)

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

Joints

guidance.

OOOE

OOOE

B) Details of the payment of retirement allowances for Plaintiff SS

Sector

C.

Amount of retirement allowances (number of persons);

Sector

C.

The number of persons paid as retirement allowances.

2010

2. 2

July 2010

2011

1 1

January 2011

OOOE

August 2010

OOO(1/72 persons)

2011.2.

OOOE

2010.9

OOO(3/78 persons)

3, 2011

OOOE

oly 2010.10

OOO (1/80 persons)

4, 2011

OOOE

November 2010

OOO(2/79 persons)

5, 2011

OOOE

December 2010

OOO(2/78 persons)

6, 2011

OOOE

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

4) 부가가치세 경감액의 사용에 대한 참가인의 지도⦁안내

A) On January 7, 2010, the Intervenor inspected 98 corporate taxi companies, including the Plaintiff, in accordance with the plan to check the actual use of the value-added tax reduced on January 7, 2010, including the “detailed statement of retirement allowance (indirect salary) half-class (settlement) accounts” in the preparation documents at the time of the check, and the “retirement allowance half-class amount” in the comprehensive statement form attached to the request for cooperation is written as an example (Evidence 5-4).

B) On July 19, 2011, the intervenor made an inquiry with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as follows, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, on August 16, 201, held that the Plaintiffs’ use the reduced amount of surtax as retirement allowance or retirement allowance reserve was in violation of the previous guidelines as it was used in the part which the users had contained before the reduction of the additional tax, and that the competent authorities immediately notify the head of the competent tax office, etc. in accordance with the Act on Special Taxation (Evidence A 6).

In April 2005, part of the amount of the surcharge reduced pursuant to the Guidelines on the Use of the Amount of the surcharge reduced for the Taxi is reflected as the retirement allowance reserve of the worker, the answer after the review is made as follows.

(a) Current status;

1) In accordance with the guidelines of April 2005, no value-added tax reduction amount shall be reflected in each enterprise as retirement pay.

2) On March 31, 2007, the labor-management agreement of less than 15, which included the total amount of reduction of additional taxes, including basic pay, the amount of direct wage and retirement pay such as work allowances, good faith allowances, etc., so it is agreed that they do not raise any objection among themselves.

(At the present moment, the resignation side does not include the retirement allowance reserve, and the employer does not include the retirement allowance reserve).

3) On July 2010, the guideline was amended on July 2010, no tax reduction amount of value-added tax shall be used as the retirement allowance reserve after the preparation of the agreement.

6) According to the inquiry reply on April 8, 2011 (National Land Eghhhhy Division ? taxi trade union) the judgment that the additional tax reduction amount should not be deducted from the tax reduction amount, the call operation expenses, the driving clothes purchase cost, the retirement allowance reserve, etc. pursuant to the guidelines on April 7, 2010.

(b) A summary of the inquiry;

(i)whether the amount of value-added tax reduced in accordance with an employment-management agreement reflects it as the retirement allowance reserve fund in violation of the guidelines since April 2005;

2) On the basis of the agreement entered into by the labor-management agreement in March 2007 (i.e., recognition of the company and non-existence of the union) and used it by reflecting it from some companies to the retirement allowance reserve before the amendment of the guidelines in July 2010, in violation of the guidelines in April 2005, whether an order for business improvement can be issued by applying unfair use.

3) Whether a part of the amount of surtax relief may be paid to a person who retired on the basis of a retirement allowance. end

C) On August 18, 2011, according to the aforementioned reply, the Intervenor sent to the taxi transport business association an official document stating that the amount of the tax to be added to the taxi transport business association is prohibited from being used as retirement allowance for the retirement reserve fund and the retirement allowance for the person who retired from the company (Evidence 5-5), and around September 2011, the Intervenor notified the Defendants to estimate the amount of the tax to be used unfairly out of the amount of the reduced tax in this case (Evidence 2-1 and 2).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4 to 35, and Eul evidence 1 to 7 (each of the evidences (including any natural disaster) and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the plaintiffs' first argument

A) Where the previous guidelines apply (in the case of Plaintiff DD),

In light of the following circumstances which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the above facts and arguments as to whether the reduced tax amount of this case can be deemed to have been actually paid for the improvement of treatment or welfare of transportation service employees, and whether it is used for the part that had been previously borne by the employer, it shall be deemed that the reduced tax amount of this case was actually paid to the workers within the period determined by the law, and it shall be deemed that the reduced tax amount of this case was paid including wages and retirement allowances, etc. within the period determined by the labor-management agreement, and it shall be deemed that the reduced tax amount of this case was accumulated for the payment of retirement allowance, and it shall be deemed that the reduced tax amount was actually paid within the period determined by the law, and it shall not be deemed that the reduced tax amount was actually used for the improvement of treatment or welfare of the transportation service employees, and even if some of the accumulated amount was actually paid within the statutory period, it shall not be deemed that it was actually used for the improvement of the welfare of the service employees within the statutory period, regardless of the amount of retirement allowance and value-added tax.

(1) Retirement pay is a lump sum payment paid by an employer on the ground of termination of employment where a worker has served for a considerable period of time and retires, and has the nature of post-paid wages when the worker retires from employment, and retirement pay is naturally borne by the employer according to the payment of wages.

(2) When the previous guidelines choose the method of cash payment, the meaning of the phrase of "prudent determination by comparing and reviewing whether the burden of tax burden and retirement allowance are reflected in the calculation of the retirement allowance, and the meaning of the phrase of "prudent determination" is not that the reduced tax can be used in the retirement allowance, but it is assumed that the employer should determine the method of payment in consideration of the fact that the employer may additionally bear the retirement allowance when paying the reduced tax in cash, and rather, it is assumed that the employer should additionally bear the retirement allowance according to the amount of wage increase.

(3) The labor-management agreement concluded between the taxi transport business association and the trade union on March 31, 2007 and September 3, 2009, which provides that the full amount of the value-added tax reduced includes the total amount of direct wage and retirement allowance, such as basic pay, work allowances, good faith allowances, etc., and thus, does not raise any objection among them. Thus, the labor-management agreement, which provides that the amount of the value-added tax reduced is merely paid without actually paying the amount of the value-added tax reduced, barring any special circumstance, is presumed to have been used for the improvement of the treatment or welfare of transport employees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26261, Jun. 13, 2013).

(4) The item of "value-added tax reduction amount" is indicated in the General Book (Evidence A to No. 17, No. 20, and No. 27) submitted by the plaintiffs, but it is indicated in the sense that it is not paid in separate items, but included in the total amount paid, and that the amount of reduction is included in the total amount paid.

Then, it is unclear whether the increased amount of retirement allowance increased due to the payment of the reduced amount of the additional tax paid and processed as above can not be specified, and whether the reduced amount was reflected in the retirement allowance based on any criteria since it is unclear (Evidence A 10) and the fact that the Plaintiff actually used the increased amount of the reduced amount of the retirement allowance is difficult to recognize.

(5) The content of the guideline that the amount of retirement allowance to be accumulated was treated as being accumulated in 35 or more workers each month, and that it is merely a part of the entire workers (60 or fewer persons) who received the wage for the same period and engaged in the taxable period, and that it is also inconsistent with the guidelines that it should be paid to all taxi workers during the taxable period, and that it should be paid by means of "the calculation method based on the number of working days and by marking that it is an amount of additional tax reduction."

(6) In the tax proceeding, the plaintiffs argued that the amount of value-added tax reduced is "the amount of value-added tax reduced," which was paid to the monthly employee in addition to the same amount when the employee retires, and the amount of retirement allowance paid as retirement allowance is used to improve the treatment and welfare of the driver." The plaintiffs do not actually pay the amount of the value-added tax reduced as retirement allowance amount each month, but once they were used for other purposes and accumulated in the account book, and the amount of the value-added tax reduced which was actually performed when the employee retires, and this is also in violation of the relevant laws and guidelines that stipulate

B) If the Revised Guidelines apply (in the case of Plaintiff SS:

The revised guidelines applicable from February 2010 provide that transport business operators shall pay the full amount of surtax reduction in cash to transport business operators within one month from the end of the payment deadline for the final return of the surtax, and where agreement is reached between the labor and the company, it is only possible for all taxi workers to pay the full amount of surtax reduction in cash, and where agreement is reached by the labor and the company, it shall be paid by the daily calculation method according to the number of working days, and it shall be marked that the amount of surtax is the amount of surtax reduction. As seen earlier, it is not illegal to prevent the use of the amount of surtax reduction in this case, regardless of whether it constitutes a payment method prohibited regardless of whether it is a labor and private agreement, and the retirement allowance is naturally borne by the employer following the payment of the wage.

Therefore, the assertion that Plaintiff SS used the reduced tax amount as retirement allowance in February 2, 2010 and January 201, 201 constitutes a case where Plaintiff SS paid the reduced tax amount in violation of the revised guidelines, and thus, Plaintiff SS’s allegation is without merit.

2) As to the second argument by the plaintiffs

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's actions in tax law relations, (1) the tax authority must express the public opinion the taxpayer is the subject of trust, and (2) the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the taxpayer's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance, and (4) the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance should result

According to the health stand and the above facts of recognition, the intervenor did not point out the illegality that the plaintiffs used the reduced amount of surtax as retirement allowance anti-concept, while seeking the plaintiff to check and cooperate on the actual use of the reduced amount of tax, and dispatched it to the inspection plan (fixed amount of retirement allowance).

The expression of opinion is, in principle, a government office that has the authority to impose tax on the relevant item or a higher government office that has the authority to direct and supervise it, and the expression of opinion by another government agency that has no authority to exercise the authority to impose tax on it does not meet the above requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to view the above act of the intervenor who is not the person having the authority to impose each of the dispositions of this case as a public opinion of the administrative agency.

In addition, the fact that there was an omission of taxation for a certain period alone cannot be deemed to have existed a national tax practice generally accepted by taxpayers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu531, Apr. 26, 1983). The tax authority’s act of receiving the preliminary and final return of value-added tax by an entrepreneur who is the taxpayer or censorship a business registration certificate by the entrepreneur who is the taxpayer cannot be deemed to have expressed any public opinion regarding the taxation of value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6415, Feb. 25, 192). In light of such legal principles, the mere fact that the Intervenor did not point out the illegality of the act reflected in the amount of the reduced tax in accordance with the labor-management agreement by the Plaintiffs and provided any trust to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.