Cases where a taxation disposition is illegal in violation of the good faith principle.

In the first place, the Plaintiff was aware of the domestic sales of the imported aggregate treatment organization as a transaction subject to value-added tax and paid value-added tax, but the tax official did not collect value-added tax on behalf of the taxpayer by providing tax guidance that it is unnecessary to issue a tax invoice while it is a tax-free transaction, and the tax office imposed value-added tax on only the tax-free income return, which is unlawful.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu593 Decided April 23, 1985 (Special 3 pages 13, Articles 15(2), 33(3), 375Gong623 and 800)

Prostitution et al. and one other

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

1. The defendant on October 16, 1985, issued a disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 16,004,730 won for the second term of 1983, 10,150,680 won for the first term of 1984, 9,494,300 won for the second term of 1984, and 2,809,700 won for the first term of 1985, and value-added tax for the second term of 19,149,300 won for the second term of 1984, and 3,352,450 won for the first term of 1985, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Plaintiff 1, as Plaintiff 2, had been engaged in the business of importing and selling the medical appliances with the trade name called (trade name omitted) in Seoul (Screw and Stmm) at the same (S. omitted) and supplied them to domestic hospitals, etc., the above Cropic Treatment Organization constitutes value-added tax-free items. Plaintiff 2, from February 1, 1983 to January 1, 1985, Plaintiff 3, from February 2, 1984 to 1, 1985, Plaintiff 2, from 197 to 1, 1985, the value-added tax was exempted for the sales of the Cropic Treatment Organization. Defendant 2, from the income tax and business income tax for the Cropic Treatment Organization for the said period, and Defendant 2, from the Value-Added Tax Act for the said period, for the said period, 1, 3, 1985, 3, 9, 196, 1, 2, 97, 1, 16, 2, 3, 16, 2, 4, 7, 1, 2, 16.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and applicable provisions of law. First, Article 12 (2) 14 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 46 subparagraph 17-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the income of the above Alley treatment organization was a trade subject to tax exemption, and the legislative intent of which is to supply treatment organization at a low price to the so-called physically handicapped children. Thus, in light of the legislative intent and equity of taxation and the purpose of taxation, the above tax exemption provision should be applied to cases where a person who is not an actual user imports the above organization and makes domestic transactions again. Thus, the plaintiffs' domestic transactions should also be exempted. Second, the plaintiffs issued a tax invoice with erroneous notice that the above goods were subject to value-added tax, and notified and paid value-added tax to the above goods, but the defendant's public official reported the above goods to collect value-added tax on behalf of the hospital, etc. for which the plaintiffs sold the above goods were subject to tax exemption, and thus, the defendant continued to impose tax exemption for the majority of 198 years thereafter.

First of all, the plaintiffs' first assertion is that the value-added tax shall be exempted for the import of goods free of charge or exempt from customs duties under Article 12 (2) 14 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3273, Dec. 13, 1980). Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10699, Dec. 31, 1981) delegated by the above, one of the items prescribed by the Presidential Decree is the market price, hearing and speech disability, hearing and speech disability, chronic renal patient, etc., and it is difficult to view the above items as exempt from customs duties under Article 28-6 (1) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3492, Dec. 31, 1981), and Article 20 (5) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10699).

In addition, the second argument of the plaintiffs is discussed. Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the principle of good faith in tax law relations, and in general, in tax law relations, the first requirement of the application of the principle of good faith to the tax authority's act is that the tax authority should name the public opinion that is the object of taxpayer's trust, second, there should be no reason for the taxpayer to believe that the tax authority's statement of opinion is legitimate, and third, there should be no reason for the taxpayer to be responsible for the taxpayer to believe that the taxpayer's statement of opinion should be trusted, that act should be done by the taxpayer, and that the tax authority's disposition against the above statement of opinion should result in a violation of taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu593, Apr. 23, 198; 86Nu92, May 26, 1987; 86Nu92, Apr. 26, 198).

However, in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (Indication and Contents of the Mediation Group), Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2 (Each Investigation Book), Gap evidence Nos. 7 (household Nos. 7), Kim Jae-chul's testimony, plaintiff Man-hee's personal questioning results, and all purports of arguments, the plaintiffs had established and operated (mutual omitted) independently around May 1984. At the same time, the plaintiffs were aware of the domestic transaction of the goods of this case as the object of value-added tax and paid the value-added tax, but they did not make an annual tax exemption statement from the tax office for 3,4 months from March 1983 to the income tax exemption statement, and the plaintiffs did not make an additional tax exemption statement for the goods of this case as the tax exemption statement and the income tax exemption statement for the goods of this case to be issued by the non-party 1, who had been subject to value-added tax and the non-party 2, who had been subject to value-added tax exemption and the income tax exemption statement.

According to the above facts, the above employees of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office explicitly provided a tax guidance that the goods of this case are subject to the exemption of value-added tax, and the plaintiffs believe such tax guidance as above and did not collect value-added tax on subsequent domestic transactions, and there are no causes attributable to the plaintiffs as to their belief, so the defendant's taxation of this case shall meet the requirements to apply the principle of trust and good faith. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith and is thus unlawful without examining the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation because the disposition of this case was unlawful, are justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)