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

B. Standard to determine whether tax authorities have a public opinion statement for the application of the good faith principle

(c) The case applying the good faith principle to the acquisition tax exemption promise due to the general affairs under the direction of the head of the Gu and the substitute acquisition by its employees;

A. In general, the Customs Office, to which the principle of trust and good faith is applied to the acts of the tax authorities in tax and law relations, must express the public opinion that is the subject of taxpayer trust, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the reliance on the tax authority's reliance, and the third taxpayer's reliance on what is the reliance on the tax authority

B. The principle of trust and good faith or the principle of gold speech is applicable to special cases where the protection of taxpayer's trust is deemed to conform to the justice and equity even if there are special circumstances that make it possible to sacrifice the legality, and thus, there is a key element of the legal principle in the protection of taxpayer's trust. Therefore, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement by the tax authority, one of the requirements of paragraph (a), the determination of whether there is a public opinion statement by the tax authority should be made by the substance in light of the person's organizational position and duties, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility.

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below rejecting the allegation of violation of the good faith principle on the ground that, in the event that the employee is actively in accordance with the direction of the head of the Gu and his employee is believed to believe the promise as it is and decided to sell the real estate owned by the Gu, the head of the Gu is in the position of the tax authority to be delegated with the authority to impose and collect acquisition tax, which is Seoul Special Metropolitan City tax, pursuant to Article 4 of the Local Tax Act and Article 6 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Tax Ordinance, and it is sufficient to deem that the promise expressed in a real estate sales contract was made in the position of the tax authority, and that even if the employee belongs to the general affairs division, his speech and behavior is not deemed to be not the name of the tax authority

(b)Article 65 of the Local Tax Act, Article 15(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 4 of the Local Tax Act and Article 6(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance;

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu593 delivered on April 23, 1985 (Gong1985,800) 88Nu5280 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990,2307) 91Nu9848 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong192,1757)

Plaintiff

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu3366 delivered on September 8, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition to impose acquisition tax of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith, the court below agreed that acquisition tax shall not be imposed because the Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted), which is the plaintiff's ownership, intended to purchase the land and the ground buildings (the previous real estate) at the appraisal price for the new building site of the Dong Office 13 Dong Office, but the plaintiff's appraisal price is not due to a lot different from the actual market price, and the local administrative assistant non-party 1 (the non-party 2 of the original judgment) who is the person in charge of consultation on purchase of the former real estate (the non-party 1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's non-party 1's new real estate purchase of the above real estate can not be viewed as a substitute for the plaintiff's previous real estate's office's non-taxation or non-party 1's opinion.

However, according to the records, the Gwanak-gu used the site for the construction of the 13 unit building of the new forest 13 unit building newly established in accordance with the plan for the subdivision of the autonomous Gu in 192, and the owner of the first selected site failed to comply with the price problem, and entered into the above sales contract on August 28, 1992 with the approval of the Gu Council on September 30 of the same year. In the process of the purchase of the real estate in this case, the Gwanak-gu expressed its intention to cancel the sale and demanded a separate compensation support plan for difference with the market price, the Gwanak-gu decided that the new construction of the new government building is a public project in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and can be applied to the above ordinance on the exemption from market price, and that the head of the Gwanak-gu Office established the plaintiff with the special agreement on exemption from acquisition tax and national housing, and settled it.

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax law relations, first, the tax authorities must express the public opinion that is the object of taxpayer trust, second, the taxpayer's trust in the name of the tax authorities should not be attributable to the taxpayer, third, the taxpayer must trust in the name of the opinion and act in which it is against the above name of the party member, and fourth, the tax authorities should make the disposition against the above name of the party member to cause the result of infringing on the taxpayer's interest. (Supreme Court Decision 84Nu593 delivered on April 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu5280 delivered on October 10, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9848 delivered on April 28, 1992).

However, the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of closed speech is applicable to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that the protection of taxpayer's trust is consistent with the justice and equity, and there are key elements of the legal principle in that the protection of taxpayer's trust is the protection of taxpayer's trust. Therefore, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement of the tax authority, one of the above requirements, it does not necessarily necessarily lead to the formal authority of the administrative organization, but should be determined by the substance in light of the person's organizational position and duties, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility.

In this case, as seen above, the plaintiff is clear that the non-party 2, who is the employee of the head of the Gwanak-gu Office, actively proposed the exemption of acquisition tax in accordance with the direction of the head of the office of Gwanak-gu and decided the intention of sale of the real estate owned by Gwanak-gu, who believed the promise as it is and trusted the intention of sale of the real estate owned by the head of the office. However, since the head of the defendant is in the position of the tax authority responsible for handling the acquisition tax by delegation of the right to impose and collect the acquisition tax, which is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City tax pursuant to Article 4 of the Local Tax Act and Article 6 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Tax Ordinance, it is sufficient to deem that the promise of exemption of acquisition tax expressed in the conclusion of the real estate sales contract of this case was made

On the other hand, Article 1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance is only a public project implemented by the State or the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and despite the absence of its application in the case of an autonomous Gu, which is a subordinate local government of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was not aware of the ordinance provisions on exemption of acquisition tax in this case and there is a cause attributable to the Plaintiff, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not accurately find out the aforementioned provision on exemption of acquisition tax in this case, by committing an error in interpretation such as the above recognition by the head of the Gu, who is the tax authority, notwithstanding the absence of its application in the case of an autonomous Gu, which is a subordinate local government of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Furthermore, in light of the characteristics of the facts of this case, even if the Plaintiff is entitled to remedy through the civil litigation procedure of this case, if the Plaintiff is not protected in the course of the tax litigation of this case

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above non-party 1 is not a tax official, and it cannot be deemed as a public statement of opinion of the tax authority, and it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of good faith. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith applied in the tax law or not examining the requirements, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)