The case holding that since the provision of guidance services necessary for obtaining certification from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) does not constitute a personal service exempt from value-added tax, it cannot be deemed that a non-taxable practice by the tax authority to the effect that the provision of such services is not exempt from value-added tax, even if the tax authority did not impose value-added tax on other business operators who provide similar services.

The case holding that since the provision of guidance services necessary for obtaining certification from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) does not constitute a personal service exempt from value-added tax, it cannot be deemed that a non-taxable practice by the tax authority to the effect that the provision of such services is not exempt from value-added tax, even if the tax authority did not impose value-added tax on other enterprisers who provide services similar to the above services.

Article 12(1)13 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 5585, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 35 subparag. 2(b) (current deleted) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973, Dec. 31, 1998); Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu6888 delivered on May 16, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the principle of good faith

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority must issue the public opinion list that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer's trust is not attributable to the taxpayer. The taxpayer must trust the opinion list and act what is against the opinion list, and the tax authority should make a disposition against the opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du10131, Nov. 27, 2001, etc.). The business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act has the legislative purport of making the tax authority grasp the taxpayer of the value-added tax and secure the taxation data. This is merely a report of business fact, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely a delivery of the certificate proving such registration application to the head of the tax office under his jurisdiction. Thus, even if the head of the tax office has issued the business registration certificate to the taxpayer, the taxpayer's opinion or opinion that the value-added tax is not presented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100>

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith.

2. As to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

In order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be an objective fact that has not been taxed over a considerable period of time, as well as an intent that the tax authorities are exempt from taxation due to any special circumstance despite the knowledge that the tax authorities could impose taxes on the matter. Such public opinion or intent must be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but in order to establish an implied expression of taxation, there must be circumstances that the tax authorities expressed their intent not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1065 delivered on January 21, 200, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidence of employment, and determined that the service provided by the plaintiff was not a non-taxable practice of the tax authority to the effect that the service provided by the plaintiff is exempt from value-added tax, even if the tax authority did not impose value-added tax by 197 on other enterprisers providing similar services to the plaintiff including the plaintiff, unless it constitutes a personal service exempt from value-added tax, since the service provided by the plaintiff is provided by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

In light of the above legal principles and relevant statutes, all of the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition or non-taxable practice.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)