B. Requirements to apply the principle of trust and good faith to tax authorities' actions in tax legal relations

C. Whether the tax authority’s issuance of a business registration certificate for value-added tax-free business operators upon application by business operators constitutes “02” requirement

(d) Whether or not the additional tax under Article 22 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the additional tax under paragraph (3) of the same Article may be imposed overlapped; and

B. In general, in tax legal relations, the tax authority should issue a public opinion list that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, and the tax authority should issue a public opinion list that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the trust of the tax authority. Third, the taxpayer must trust his opinion list and engage in an act that is in breach of the above opinion list, and fourth, the tax authority's disposition should result in a violation of the taxpayer's interest by making a disposition against the above opinion list. Only when meeting all these requirements, the disposition by the tax authority is unlawful.

C. The taxing authority’s issuance of a business registration certificate for tax-free business operators cannot be deemed as having expressed a public opinion on the taxation of value-added tax, and even if a taxpayer who received a business registration certificate for value-added tax-free business from the taxing authority trusted that he/she is a value-added tax-free business operator, the taxpayer did not have any reason attributable to the taxpayer on such trust.

(d) The penalty tax under Article 22(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the penalty tax under Article 22(3) of the same Act may be imposed doublely as separate from each other.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 12 (1) 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 35 subparagraph 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that in order to be exempted from value-added tax, the person who lawfully acquired the legal qualifications or functions required in relation to the technical business, building business, ferry business, design system business, measurement business or similar business shall be limited to the case where the person who lawfully acquired the qualifications or such functions are supplied as an independent business to a corporation or an unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization which can be established under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, or a person who lawfully acquired the qualifications or such functions, etc., shall be limited to the case where the person provides the professional human services that can be provided based on such qualifications as an independent business. Thus, in light of the purport of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above civil engineering design service cannot be deemed to be a human service subject to value-added tax exemption. In so long as the plaintiff supplied the civil engineering design service without the legal qualifications or functions required in relation to the civil engineering design service, the judgment below is justifiable and it cannot be accepted.

2. On the first ground for appeal

In general, in tax legal relations, the principle of trust and good faith applies to the tax authority's acts: first, the tax authority must issue the public opinion list that is the object of trust to the taxpayer; second, the tax authority's opinion list is justifiable and trusted to the taxpayer; third, the taxpayer must trust the opinion list and act what is against the above opinion list; fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above opinion list should result in a violation of the taxpayer's interest; fourth, the tax authority's disposition should be deemed illegal only when meeting all such requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5280 delivered on October 10, 190). Thus, even if the plaintiff supplied the civil design service without satisfying the legal requirements or function related to the civil engineering and design service, and the plaintiff did not have any violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff did not receive the business registration certificate from the defendant's trust in the delivery of the tax authority's business registration certificate as well as the plaintiff's business registration certificate cannot be accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Since the additional tax under Article 22 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the additional tax under Article 22 (3) of the same Act can be imposed concurrently because it is different from each other, the court below is just in holding that even if the defendant imposed the plaintiff for an erroneous payment for the return, other than the unregistered additional tax, it cannot be deemed unlawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the additional tax under the Value-Added Tax Act. The grounds for appeal pointing this out cannot

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)