(a) Scope of services provided to ships, etc. serving foreign countries prescribed in Article 26 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the zero-rate Tax Act;

(b) The case holding that there is no public opinion suggesting that early return fees received by an entrepreneur are subject to zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. In light of the purport of Article 11(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be strictly applied only when it is equivalent to Article 11(1) through (3) of the same Act in light of the promotion of export of goods and services and the prevention of double taxation in international trade of goods and services. Thus, the foreign exchange earnings service provided by a domestic entrepreneur to a foreign country under Article 26(1)3 of the same Decree shall be the case where the services supplied by a domestic entrepreneur to a foreign country is attributable to navigation such as overseas transport, etc.

B. At the time of the receipt of loading and unloading fees by a business operator operating a port loading and unloading business (the amount paid for the reduced number of hours, separately from the original loading and unloading fees, if the loading and unloading was completed more early than the agreed loading and unloading fees) under the premise that the taxes are exempted by the other party, and the customs office has prepared and issued a tax invoice under the premise that the taxes are exempted. The mere fact that the payment of the value-added tax has not been discussed even when the customs office received such invoice for several years, the tax office cannot be deemed to have issued a public opinion statement that can trust that the above early loading and unloading fees are subject to zero tax rate

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 25 and 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Mail Corporation, Inc.

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s taxation of value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,307,670, which was imposed by the Plaintiff as of January 21, 1989 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to Gap evidence No. 1 (Receipt for Notice) and evidence No. 18, Gap evidence No. 19-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-3, and 3-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the plaintiff filed a return on the loading and unloading business, warehouse business, etc., which are a commercial corporation established as its main business purpose; the plaintiff filed a return on the amount of value-added tax calculated by deducting the amount of value-added tax from the original loading and unloading fees for 30 hours agreed upon by the plaintiff; the plaintiff filed a return on the same tax base for the second quarter of 1983; the plaintiff filed a return on the loading and unloading business, and the amount of value-added tax calculated by deducting the amount of value-added tax from the original loading and unloading fees for 30 days reduced; the defendant did not submit the amount of value-added tax calculated by adding the amount of value-added tax to 97 1, 97.1.7

2. The Defendant asserted that the provision of this case's value-added tax imposed on the provision of the above service is lawful, since the Plaintiff provided loading and unloading services according to the loading and unloading contract concluded between the owner of the goods and received early payment of the loading and unloading fees, the Plaintiff entered into a loading and unloading contract with the owner of the goods while the Plaintiff entered into the loading and unloading contract between the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods to the Incheon port (the Plaintiff asserted that the charter contract was entered into between the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods, and that the above three-dimensional shipping contract was entered into between the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods were three-dimensional shipping contract. The Defendant asserted that the above three-dimensional shipping contract was not set up between the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods and the owner of the goods were not set forth in the zero-rate tax rate of 17 years prior to the issuance of the above zero-rate tax rate of the goods and the owner of the goods are not set out.

살피건대, 부가가치세법 제11조 제1항 에는 영세율을 적용하는 대상으로 ① 수출하는 재화, ② 국외에서 제공하는 용역, ③ 선박 또는 항공기의 외국항행용역, ④ 기타 외화를 획득하는 재화 또는 용역으로서 대통령령이 정하는 것을 들고 있고 그 시행령 제26조 제1항 제3호 에는 법 제11조 제1항 제4호 에 규정하는 외화를 획득하는 재화 또는 용역으로 외국을 항행하는 선박 등에 공급하는 재화 또는 용역을 들고 있으며, 한편 시행령 제25조 에는 외국항행용역의 범위에 관하여 선박 등에 의하여 여객이나 화물을 국내에서 국외로, 국외에서 국내로 또는 국외에서 국외로 수송하는 것과 그에 부수하는 재화, 용역의 공급을 포함한다고 하고 있는데, 부가가치세법 제11조 제1항 에서 수출하는 재화나 외화획득용역 등에 대하여 각 영세율을 적용토록 한 것은 재화나 용역의 수출 및 국외공급의 장려라는 국가정책상의 목적과 아울러 국제간의 재화나 용역의 거래에 있어 생산공급국에서 부가가치세를 과세징수하고 수입국에서 다시 부가가치세를 과세하는 이중과세를 방지하려는 데에 그 근본취지가 있어 원칙적으로 수출이나 국제거래에만 적용되고 국내공급에는 그 적용이 없음을 감안할 때 시행령 제26조 제1항 각호 도 위와 같은 모법의 위임취지에 비추어 법 제11조 제1항 의 제1 내지 3호 에 준 할 만한 경우에만 엄격하게 적용되어야 할 것이므로( 대법원 1988.12.20. 선고 88누2182 판결 ; 1983.12.27. 선고 83누409 판결 등 참조) 위 시행령 제26조 제1항 제3호 가 외국을 항행하는 선박 등에 공급하는 용역도 외화획득용역으로서 법 제11조 제1항 제3호 의 외국항행용역에 준하도록 한 것은 국내사업자가 국내에서 외국항행업자에게 용역을 공급하면 그것이 국외수송 등의 항행용역으로 이어지는 경우라야 할 것인바, 이 사건 과세경위에 관하여 보건대, 위에서 든 증거들에다가 성립에 다툼없는 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제44호증의 1, 2, 갑 제45증의 1 내지 3(각 질의 및 회신), 갑 제20 내지 43호증의 각 1, 2(각 신고서 및 서류목록)의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지를 더하여 보면, 피고는 그 담당공무원으로 하여금 1989.1.경 원고가 신고한 세액의 실지조사를 위하여 원고회사에 가서 소위 동국제강을 비롯한 별지 기재의 내국회사들(이하, 동국제강 등이라 한다)과 원고와의 사이에 체결된 하역대행계약서, 하역작업시간 계산서(TIME SHEET) 및 원고회사 장부 등을 조사, 대조케 한 결과 원고가 화주인 위 동국제강 등과의 사이에 하역계약을 체결하고 화물을 하역하여 그 조기용역에 대한 조출료를 지급받은 사실(다만 그 요율 및 추심방법에 있어서는 화주가 선박대리점으로부터 받은 조출료에 대한 일정비율로 정하여 이를 선주가 화주에게, 화주가 원고에게 지급하는 대신 원고가 화주를 대리, 또는 대행하여 선주로부터 수령하기로 한 사실)과 위 화물운송선박의 선주들과 원고와의 사이에는 위 하역에 관하여 아무런 계약이 체결된 바 없음을 확인하고 위 조사결과 이 사건 조출료는 원고가 신고한 바와 같이 영세율적용이나 면세의 대상이 되지 아니한다 하여 그 신고 및 납부 누락부분에 대하여 앞서 본 바와 같은 사유로 부가가치세를 부과하게 된 사실, 한편 국세청장은 관련업자 등의 질의에 대하여 1977.7.19.자로 외국을 항행하는 선박 등에 제공하는 용역은 부가가치세법상 영세율 적용대상이라고 하고, 같은 해 10.5.자로 화주와 선주간의 계약에 의거 발생하는 조출료는 부가가치세법상의 용역의 공급에 해당되지 아니한다고 하고, 같은 해 11.11.자로 선주와 하역회사 간의 계약에 기한 화물선적의 경우 조출료는 부가가치세 과세대상이 되고 부가가치세법 제11조 에 해당하면 영세율 적용대상이 되나 선주와 화주간의 계약에 기한 화물선적의 경우 조출료는 용역제공의 대가가 아니므로 부가가치세의 대상이 아니라고 하였으며, 또 1983.7.30.에는 화주와 하역회사간의 하역계약에 기한 조출료는 부가가치세의 과세대상이 되나 화주와 선주간에 용선계약이, 선주와 하역회사 간에 본선하역계약이 각 체결되고 화주가 선주로부터 지급받은 조출료 중의 일부를 하역회사에 지급해 준 경우에는 위 조출료가 용역제공과 대가관계가 없어 부가가치세 과세대상이 아니며 다만 구간에 따라 구분된 하역계약이 체결되어 있는 경우 화주가 그 계약구간 밖의 타 구간에 대한 조기하역에 대하여 조출료를 지급하면 과세대상이 아니라고 각 회답하였으며, 원고는 1983년부터 1989년 사이에 거래상대방으로부터 조출료를 받을 때 그에 대하여 부가가치세가 면제되거나 영의 세율이 적용되는 것을 전제로 작성한 세금계산서를 교부하기도 하고 아예 세급계산서를 작성교부하지 않기도 하였으며 피고에게도 위와 같은 계산서를 모아 제출하였는데도 그

Until now, it can be recognized that there is no doubt about whether value-added tax has been paid by the defendant, and the testimony of the misappropriation of a witness against the above recognition does not constitute counter-proof without reliance.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the tax imposition disposition, the plaintiff's first argument is based on the circumstances such as the above recognition, and generally, in principle, there is a burden of proof with respect to the legality of the taxation disposition and the facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process. If it is proved that the facts at issue were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule in question, it cannot be concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements unless the facts at issue are proved (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu183 delivered on September 12, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811 delivered on December 22, 1987, etc.). Thus, in light of the above circumstances of the defendant's taxation, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff's delivery fee is confirmed to have been paid for loading and unloading between the above international lecture, the owner, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above international shipbuilding fee was contrary to the principle of the zero tax rate, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

Next, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authorities' actions in tax law, the tax authorities name the public opinion list subject to taxpayer's trust, and the taxpayer trust the opinion list, and such trust may result in a violation of taxpayer's interest by making a disposition contrary to the opinion already expressed by the tax authorities. As such recognition, the defendant prepared and delivered a tax invoice on the premise that the plaintiff did not collect value-added tax from the other party at the time of receiving early payment and the plaintiff did not collect value-added tax until January 21, 1989 on the second-term transaction of this case until the tax authorities imposed value-added tax as of January 21, 1989. Even though the tax authorities submitted the above statement to the defendant, the fact that the issue of payment of value-added tax was not discussed by the defendant while the defendant presented it, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's submission of the above statement does not violate the principle of trust and good faith between the parties concerned, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's submission of the above statement does not violate the principle of taxation.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the service relationship of receiving early withdrawal fees is subject to zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act, or that the taxation disposition against it is unlawful against the good faith principle, etc., is without merit, and it is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost

Judges Suspension-type (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-jin