[1] The requirements for the application of the principle of good faith and good faith in tax law relations

[2] Whether Article 26 (2) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is retroactively applied (affirmative)

[1] In order for taxation to be contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of speech and good faith, the tax authority should first express the taxpayer's public opinion that is the object of trust, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority's reliance on the taxing authority

[2] Under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act amended by the Constitutional Court in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision of inconsistency with the Constitution on July 29, 1994 in the case of a consolidation of 92Hun-Ba49, 52 cases, where idle land is transferred during the taxable period of land excess profit tax, the transferor shall not be subject to the land excess profit tax (Article 26 (2) of the amended Act). The provisions of the above amendment apply retroactively to the case and the cases thereafter.

[1] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 26 (2) of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9848 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1757), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2640), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13746 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 699) / [2] Constitutional Court Decision 92Hun-Ba49, 52 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Hun-Ga7, 505), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16475 delivered on March 12, 196 (Gong196, 1294), Supreme Court Decision 98Nu197989 delivered on July 30, 196 (Gong196, 197Nu1963979 delivered on July 196, 1997).

Limited Partnership Corporation (Attorney Zoo-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu2962 delivered on December 5, 1996

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

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for the taxation disposition of this case to be contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of speech, the tax authority should first state the public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority's statement of opinion is justifiable, third, the taxpayer should trust the statement of opinion and act in what manner it is against the statement of opinion. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the statement of opinion should result in infringing the taxpayer's interest, and the tax authority's public statement of opinion should be made by the tax officer in a position of responsibility in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13746 delivered on January 23, 1996). Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that there was a public opinion expressed by the tax authority that the port market permitted the land transaction contract of this case to the land of this case and that there was a public opinion that the taxpayer would not impose the land excess profit tax on the land of this case.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

On July 29, 1994, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (hereinafter "the former Act") does not conform with the Constitution in the case of consolidation of 92HunBa49, 52. Accordingly, the National Assembly revised the tax base provisions (Article 11 of the former Act) and the tax rate provisions (Article 12 of the former Act) that pointed out that the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution was unconstitutional or unconstitutional as of December 22, 1994 (hereinafter "the amended Act") and the tax base provisions (Article 11 of the former Act) to deduct 2,00,000 won from the land excess gains during the pertinent taxable period (Article 11-2 of the amended Act). In calculating the tax base, if a person transfers idle land during the pertinent taxable period, the National Assembly shall not impose the first tax on the land excess gains during the transfer period (Article 26(2) of the amended Act).

Nevertheless, according to the records, the court below calculated the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Articles 11 and 12 of the former Act, and determined that the tax base and tax amount of this case were legitimate without deducting the land excess profits for the period owned by the former owner during the taxable period, and then calculated the tax base by applying the revised tax rate under Article 12 of the amended Act, which applied the revised tax rate under Article 12 of the amended Act, and calculated the reduction of the tax amount by deducting the land price of this case transferred during the taxable period from the land price at the end of the taxable period ( December 31, 1992) and calculated the land excess gains by calculating the land excess gains during the taxable period from the land price at the end of the taxable period ( January 1, 1990). In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous because the tax base and tax rate were applied as a result of the violation of laws and regulations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)