The meaning of cases where the practices of national tax administration under Article 18(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) are generally accepted by taxpayers.

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

Article 18(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746, Aug. 7, 1984) generally accepted by taxpayers the interpretation of tax-related Acts or the practices of national tax administration refers to the extent that such interpretation or practices are accepted by an unspecified general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer without objection, and that it is unreasonable for taxpayers to trust such interpretation or practices.

B. In general, the requirements to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax and legal relations should be first, the tax authorities should express the public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, second, the tax authorities should not cause the taxpayer to be responsible for the reliance on the legitimacy of the expression of opinion, third, the taxpayer must act in trust and what is, and fourth, the taxpayer should act in trust, and fourth, the tax authorities should make a disposition contrary to the above list of opinion, thereby infringing on the taxpayer’s interest.

Article 18(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Pasan Metal Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu576 delivered on July 18, 1984

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff Cho Jong-hee (Attorney Cho Jae-hee’s ground of appeal is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal).

(1) As to whether there is a violation of retroactive taxation prohibition

Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that, after a construction of tax-related Acts or a practice in tax administration is generally accepted by taxpayers, any act or computation according to such construction or practice shall be deemed justifiable, and no tax shall be imposed retroactively by a new construction or practice. Here, the term "any construction of tax-related Act or practices in tax administration" means that it is recognized that a general taxpayer, who is not a specific taxpayer, has accepted such a construction or practice without objection and that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to trust such construction or practice.

In this case, it is examined whether the tax law interpretation or practice alleged by the Plaintiff does not fall under the capital increase under the proviso of Article 15(1) of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act, and thus tax reduction or exemption is generally accepted by the taxpayers. As determined by the court below, ① for 8 years prior to March 8, 1978, the tax authority imposed new methods of tax reduction or exemption on the capital increase by deeming the capital increase as the capital increase under the proviso of Article 15(1) of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act, and ② on March 8, 198, the Ministry of Finance and Economy changed the previous interpretation to deny new tax reduction or exemption by changing the capital increase, and accordingly, imposed tax on the capital increase in accordance with the method of capital increase or exemption. However, the above interpretation and tax reduction or exemption on the grounds that it is difficult to view the previous tax reduction or exemption method as the grounds that the above interpretation and exemption method should be applied to the Seoul High Court on June 19 and 9, 1979.

The court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment as to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition, as argued in the theory of lawsuit.

(2) As to the violation of the principle of good faith

(a) Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be in accordance with good faith and sincerity when a taxpayer performs his obligations;

Tax officials are also the same in performing their duties.

This principle of good faith means that the principle of good faith should not be infringed on the interests of the other party acting in trust in his own speech and behavior, and in general, in tax law relations, the tax authority should first apply the public opinion statement that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, second, the tax authority should make the public opinion statement that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, and second, there should be no reason for the taxpayer to be responsible for the reliance on the tax authority's fair and trusted opinion statement, third, the taxpayer must act in trust and what kind, and fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above opinion statement should cause the result of infringing on the taxpayer's interest by making the tax authority's disposition contrary to the above opinion statement. If the tax authority satisfies all these requirements, the disposition by the tax authority is considered to be unlawful as an

B. According to the facts established in the judgment below and the evidence of employment of the court below, the tax authorities including the defendant, etc., expressed the public opinion of the tax authorities by recommending taxpayers to pay corporate tax according to the above reduction method, not only new reduction or exemption method but also original reduction or exemption method, and also by recommending taxpayers to pay corporate tax according to the above reduction or exemption method through the taxpayer's explanation of tax payment guidance for foreign investment companies published at the beginning of the year. Second, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has any cause attributable to the plaintiff on the trusted statement of opinion of the tax authorities. Third, if the plaintiff would have to pay the tax reduction or exemption method based on the new reduction or exemption method for the increased or exempted capital in the year following the year in which the increase in capital was increased, the defendant would not be able to suffer any disadvantage in the initial reduction or exemption method, instead of the defendant's new reduction or exemption method for the increased or exempted capital in the year in which the increase in capital was increased due to the increase in the new increase or exemption method in the tax reduction or exemption method in the year in question.

In this regard, since there is room to see that the instant taxation disposition against the plaintiff is a disposition contrary to the principle of good faith, the court below should have reviewed more closely and judged whether to apply the principle of good faith. However, the court below should have determined that it does not necessarily go against the principle of good faith without any name. Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this issue, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith, improper reasons, and the principle of good faith.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

The judgment of the court below held that since the plaintiff paid corporate tax for the business year of this case originally in accordance with the guidance and final use of the customs authority, the portion exceeding the additional tax on non-payment of corporate tax of this case and the additional tax on non-payment of defense tax of this case exceeds the additional tax on non-payment of the original decision

In the event that the tax authority changed the view on the method of reduction and exemption of corporate tax and defense tax after the Plaintiff, who is a taxpayer, paid the corporate tax and defense tax in accordance with the guidance and final use of the tax authority, and further set the reduction and exemption rate again, the tax authority’s imposition of the unpaid additional tax on the increased portion of corporate tax and defense tax cannot be deemed an illegal disposition contrary to the principle of good faith. The judgment below to the same purport is justifiable and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles under Article 41 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or violating the law on the ground that

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)