The case holding that the imposition of value-added tax on import and sale business entities of a peltoa treatment organization who believe the tax guidance of its employees and did not collect value-added tax on behalf of them is in violation

The employees of the tax office explicitly provided the tax guidance that the above goods are subject to value-added tax exemption to the Plaintiffs, who are import distributors of the Alley Treatment Organization, and the Plaintiffs believe such tax guidance as above and did not collect value-added tax on their subsequent domestic transactions, and if it cannot be deemed that there are any causes attributable to the Plaintiffs, it shall be deemed that there was a public opinion name of the tax authorities on whether to exempt value-added tax in this case. Accordingly, since the tax authorities should be deemed that there was a public opinion of the tax authorities on whether to exempt value-added tax in this case, if the Defendant, who is the tax authorities, imports the above Alley Treatment Organization and supplies them to the domestic medical institutions in the next country after importing it, the instant tax disposition that increased value-added tax on the taxable period, which was

Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other Plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu642 delivered on March 25, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In general, in tax law relations, the principle of trust and good faith applies to the tax authority's act, first, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the object of trust to taxpayers, second, the tax authority's opinion list that is fair and trust trust should not be attributable to taxpayers, third, the taxpayer must trust his opinion list and act what is in violation of the above opinion list, and fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above opinion list should cause the result of infringing the taxpayer's interest, and fourth, the disposition of the tax authority's disposition should be considered illegal only when the tax authority satisfies all these requirements.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above 1-year sales statement for the 1-year sales of the above 8-year sales of the goods imported from the above 1-year medical organization from 723, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and the 1-year medical organization was established independently from 104-10, and operated the same business. The above 1-year medical organization imported the 1-year medical organization from 8-year medical organization's sales of the goods imported from 1-year medical organization, and the 2-year medical organization's sales of the goods imported from 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's 9-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's sales of the 1-year medical organization's revenue.

In light of the records, if the above fact-finding of the court below is deemed correct and the fact-finding is based on the above, it shall be deemed that there was a public opinion expressed by the tax authority on whether to exempt value-added tax of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justifiable as it is in accordance with the legal principles mentioned above, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith or a mistake in

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won