(b) The case holding that the practices of national tax administration, which were generally accepted by the taxpayers under Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, have been performed;

B. Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the purpose of this Act is to protect the rights of taxpayers and to protect the taxpayer’s trust to the tax authorities. Thus, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which was the basis for imposing the license tax, was enacted on October 1, 1973 and repealed on September 20, 197, and even if the Defendant knew that the license tax may be imposed for four years until it was repealed on September 20, 197, the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, even if he did not impose the license tax, may not believe it, and thus, deemed that the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, was unable to believe it,

(1) A person eligible to obtain a license for the bonded transportation of foreign cargo from the head of a customs office pursuant to Article 128 of the Customs Act shall be the owner of the goods in question, who is a transportation business operator transporting the goods in question, or who requested the transportation thereof pursuant to Article 110-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act. Meanwhile, according to Article 161 of the Local Tax Act, the license tax shall be paid by the licensee according to the type and type of the goods.

Therefore, as in this case, even if the plaintiff is not the owner of foreign goods in question, if the person liable for payment of the license tax is the plaintiff, and if the transportation business is licensed for bonded transportation, the person liable for the payment of the license tax should be the plaintiff, and it is merely an internal relation and it cannot be asserted against the defendant who is the right to impose the license tax. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the defendant to impose the license tax on the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the principle of substantial taxation while pointing out the reasoning of

(2) The term "license" refers to an administrative disposition, the purpose of which is to establish a right or terminate a prohibition against a particular business facility or act, and the term of validity of the license is specified.

However, Article 161 (1) (proviso) of the Local Tax Act provides that the license tax shall be imposed only once a year if the term of validity is less than one year. The purport of the provision is to do so on a case-by-case basis in light of Article 124 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which separately lists exceptions. Thus, even if the license tax imposed on the Plaintiff for a long period of time in this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful as long as it is based on the number of licensed dispositions issued by the Plaintiff, and therefore, there is no argument about this point.

(3) According to Article 65 of the Local Tax Act, the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes apply mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes. Under Article 18(2) of the same Act, the practices of national tax administration are generally accepted by taxpayers, thereby making it impossible to impose taxes in violation of them. The provisions of Article 18(2) of the above Framework Act on National Taxes include the principle of trust and good faith set forth in Article 15 of the same Act and the limit of tax officials' discretion set forth in Article 19 of the same Act, and the purpose of guaranteeing the rights of taxpayers against the so-called tax authority and protecting the trust of the general taxpayers who believe that the tax authorities' actions and actions were conducted. As stated in the instant case, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which was the ground for imposing the license tax for the bonded transportation at issue, was enacted on October 1, 1973, which was enacted on September 20, 197, which did not constitute a 7th anniversary of the need to impose the license tax on the taxpayer for the first time and fourth of the tax imposed on the goods.

However, in relation to this point, the original judgment, even if the Defendant received a license for the bonded transportation business of such number during the same period, even if the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which is the basis law, was repealed, the tax may be imposed on the whole amount at the time of the establishment of the taxation requirement, and this does not constitute a case where the so-called practice of the national tax administration is generally accepted by taxpayers under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In light of the record, there was no need to examine whether the Plaintiff believed it by failing to impose it on the public interest, even though the Defendant knew of the fact during the enforcement period of the relevant law that is the basis law for imposing the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this point is ultimately erroneous in the interpretation of the so-called practices of national tax administration under Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the existence of such practices, and it is therefore justified.

In this regard, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the original court for a new trial and determination. Among the judges involved, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices except for the objection of the Supreme Court judge, the presiding official, the Korean Exchange, the number of soldiers, the immigration rules, and the Kim Yong-ran.

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court judges is as follows: transfer intervention of judges of the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the Supreme Court, the Korean deputy judge of the Supreme Court, the number of soldiers of the Supreme Court judges, the rules of transfer of Supreme Court judges, and

The majority opinion held that Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to guarantee taxpayers' rights against the so-called tax authority along with the principle of trust and good faith as provided in Article 15 of the same Act and the limit of tax officials' discretion as provided in Article 19 of the same Act, and to protect the trust interests of the general taxpayers who believe the tax authorities' actions and actions, and thus, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which is the basis for imposing the license tax for bonded transportation in question, was enacted on October 1, 1973, and was also enacted on September 20, 197, and even if the defendant knew that it was possible to impose the license tax for four years until it was abolished in September 20, 197, the plaintiff, the taxpayer, even if he did not impose one of them from the public interest necessity of the extension of export, it is impossible to believe it, and thus, it was a non-taxable practice.

On the other hand, tax-related laws and regulations are mandatory provisions, so if the requirements for taxation are satisfied, the tax authorities should collect the prescribed amount of tax under the conditions as prescribed by the law, and the tax authorities can not defer the tax reduction or collection unless there is a specific express provision on the reduction or exemption of taxes. Therefore, the tax authorities can exclude the irregularities that can be changed in the process of enforcing the tax law, thereby ensuring the fairness of the tax burden.

The principle of legality is called the principle of legality. If the principle of legality is applied formally, the tax authority can interpret the tax law once and alter it to legitimate interpretation and fact-finding at any time even after recognizing the fact of taxation requirements. If so, the tax authority imposes disadvantages on the taxpayer who has trusted the national tax administration which was implemented on the premise of the initial interpretation and interpretation of the tax law imposed by the tax authority, and one of the provisions of Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes are the provisions of Article 18(2) of the same Act.

Therefore, we cannot agree with the majority opinion that it is a provision to protect the trust interests of the general taxpayer who believe the words and actions of the tax authority under Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, since the principle of legality stated above is superior to the principle of legal stability of protecting taxpayer's trust, it cannot be deemed that there was a practices of national tax administration accepted by taxpayers under Article 18 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it can not be deemed that there was a practice of national tax administration, which is generally accepted by the tax authorities, and there is a situation where the tax authorities recognizes that the taxpayer's trust is not unreasonable on the ground that there was an explicit speech or behavior of approving the taxpayer's non-taxation and there is no taxation for a certain period of time. However, as stated in the majority opinion, it should be deemed that there was a practice of national tax administration generally accepted by taxpayers under the above Act. As stated in the majority opinion, even if the defendant did not impose the license tax even though he knew that the provision was enacted from October 1, 1973 to September 20, 197, with the knowledge that the license tax can be imposed for a certain period of time from the date of abolition, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a practice of national tax administration under Article 18 (2).

If so, the majority opinion is erroneous to understand the practices of national tax administration stipulated in the above Article.

Justices Lee Young-pop (Presiding Justice) Ha Young-gu (Presiding Justice) Jin-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak Kim Jong-Jk-Jak-Jak