[1] Requirements for applying the principle of good faith to taxpayers

[2] The case holding that a person liable for duty payment is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith to claim that a lease agreement is null and void on the ground of a nominal trust after the report on discontinuation of a lease business, after pretending that a person liable for duty payment has leased a real estate trusted

[1] The principle of trust and good faith related to the law of substantial taxation, which strongly acts on the basis of the principle of trust and good faith, shall apply only to the cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the principle of trust and good faith is sacrificeed. Thus, in order for taxpayers to apply the principle of trust and good faith, there is an objectively contradictory behavior, the behavior was caused by the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority caused thereby should be protected.

[2] The case holding that since the real estate held in title trust was held in title trust and the lease is deemed null and void as a false declaration, it is against the principle of trust and good faith to claim that the lease is null and void as a false declaration of agreement, after completing business registration under the presumption that the taxpayer has leased the real estate under title trust to the truster, and receiving the input tax amount for the acquisition value of the buildings,

[1] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu18383 delivered on March 20, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1005) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2087 Delivered on June 28, 2007

Plaintiff

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Nu314 decided August 24, 2006

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of trust and good faith is limited to the case where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if it sacrifices the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, for the taxpayer to apply the principle of trust and good faith, there is an objectively contradictory behavior, the behavior was based on the taxpayer's severe act of worship, and the tax authority's trust caused thereby should be worth protecting (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu18383, Mar. 20, 1997; 2005Du2087, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, since the non-party 3, who is the largest shareholder of the non-party 1 and has de facto control over the non-party 2, etc., completed the non-party 1's decision of commencement of composition procedures around August 1998, which held the non-party 1's real estate in title trust with the non-party 1's company, etc. for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution, the plaintiff filed an application for registration of the non-party 1's location of the real estate as one of the real estate in this case's business classification as one of the real estate in this case's house, and the plaintiff's report of the non-party 1's sale of the real estate in this case's second sale of the real estate in this case's second sale of the real estate in this case's final return of value added tax for 236,180,440 won among the purchase price of the building in this case's second sale of the real estate in this case's title trust 20.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion of such disposition is unlawful on the ground that the lease contract in this case is null and void, so long as the plaintiff believed only the plaintiff's business registration application, etc. and imposed value added tax on the second year of 2004 without exercising appropriate field investigation authority even though the plaintiff lent the name for the purpose of tax avoidance or interfered with the defendant's right to field investigation, which is the tax authority, and thus making it impossible to exercise the tax and tax authority impossible. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)