(a) Requirements for establishing non-taxable practices under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

B. Whether Article 15(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes violates Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes where a tax authority made a tax disposition after five years after the tax authority rendered a non-taxation disposition of capital gains tax (negative)

A. In order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be an intention to not impose tax due to any special circumstance even though the tax authority knew that the non-taxable practice exists not only an objective fact over a considerable period of time but also that the tax authority is able to impose tax on the matter. Although a public opinion or intention may be implicitly expressed, the tax authority’s expression of intent not to impose tax on the non-taxable condition for a considerable period of time, unlike a mere omission of taxation, should be viewed as having expressed its intent not to impose tax

B. B. Before the sale of housing, the tax authority’s civil petition consultants did not impose any tax. Even if the tax authority, after the sale and purchase, issued a non-taxation disposition of capital gains tax but imposed tax after about five years, it cannot be deemed to violate Article 15(b) or Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8947 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1807) 91Nu9824 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1462) 92Nu114 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong192, 3169)

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26869 delivered on July 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff newly built and sold housing and commercial buildings on several occasions from October 14, 1983 to May 3, 1989 based on macrofics, and held that in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of new construction and transfer of the above building, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff newly constructed the house of this case on December 19, 1985 and sold the house of this case on March 21, 1986 as continuing and repeated business activities for profit purposes. In light of related Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the fact finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out. The argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

In general, to apply the principle of trust and good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to tax law relations, tax authorities must express to taxpayers a public opinion that is the subject of trust. In addition, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, tax authorities must have an intention not to impose taxes due to not only an objective fact that has not been taxed for a considerable period, but also any special circumstance that the tax authorities are aware of the possibility of imposing taxes on the matter. Meanwhile, the above public opinion or opinion may be explicitly expressed. However, in order to indicate implicit, there must be circumstances that the tax authorities expressed their intention not to impose taxes on the non-taxable condition for a considerable period, unlike a mere omission of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu8947, May 28, 1991; 89Nu3816, Oct. 10, 199).

As alleged by the plaintiff, the court below determined that the plaintiff's taxation disposition in this case should not be deemed to be a violation of Article 15 or 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even though the plaintiff had expressed that he would not impose any tax on the defendant's civil petition consultant prior to the sale of the housing in this case, and that even though the defendant was treated as non-taxation after the sale in this case, about five years have passed since then, the defendant's taxation disposition in this case cannot be deemed to be a violation of Article 15 or 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no

The precedents pointed out by the theory of lawsuit cannot be viewed as being appropriate for the instant case, unlike the instant case. The reasoning for the conclusion is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.