[1] Whether the concept of "container where containers are handled," which is a taxation requirement for regional development tax, includes a wharf where containers are handled as a general wharf (affirmative)

[2] Whether a statement of opinion on reduction of regional development tax by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries can be viewed as a statement of opinion by the tax authority, which is a requirement for applying the principle of good faith (

[1] In full view of the contents of Article 253 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 216 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; and Article 216 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act") and the purport of imposing the regional development tax on containers is to secure the financial resources required for the construction, repair, etc. of roads following the transportation of containers, the "terminal where containers are handled" under the above provision includes not only the container which is used by ships transporting mainly container cargo as defined in Article 2 subparag.

[2] In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's act in tax law relations, ① the tax authority must state the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers; ② the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance; ③ the taxpayer should act in trust on the tax authority's reliance on the reliance; ④ the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the above reliance on the tax authority's reliance should result in infringing on the taxpayer's interest; ④ the tax authority's reliance on the public opinion needs to be made by the tax official in a position of a certain responsibility in principle, so even if the tax authority expressed the public opinion that it is exempt without any specific responsibilities, this cannot be seen as being the same.

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Korea Container Terminal Authority Act, Article 253 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 216 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 65 and 253 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2640) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13746 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 699) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu553 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2552)

Hanm Chemical Co., Ltd. (formerly: British Chemical Co., Ltd.) and 30 others (Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu3855 delivered on June 21, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 253 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "regional development tax shall be imposed on water used for power generation (excluding water used for power generation), underground and underground resources, and containers using wharfs handling containers, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and Article 216 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "container 4 is one of the "containers handling containers as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" under Article 216 of the above Act, and "container 4" includes "container 9" and "container 2". In full view of the provisions of the above Act and the purport of imposing regional development tax on containers is to secure financial resources needed for the construction, repair, etc. of roads according to the transportation of containers, the "container 2" under the above provision provides that "container 3" is not only a container operated mainly by the wharf 2 subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Korea Container Terminal Act, but also a container handling within the scope of Article 131317 of the Local Tax Act.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to imposition of regional development tax, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out is

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which applies mutatis mutandis to the imposition and collection of local taxes pursuant to Article 65 of the Act, provides that "the taxpayer shall perform his/her duties in good faith and sincerity when the taxpayer performs his/her duties. The same shall also apply to the performance of his/her duties." In general, in tax and law relations, the tax authority should first express its public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of the tax authority. Second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the legitimate name of the tax authority. Third, the taxpayer must act in trust and trust of the tax authority. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above name of the opinion should result in infringing the taxpayer's interest, and the public opinion list of the tax authority should be made by a tax official who is in a position of responsibility in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159, Jun. 16, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the route of container was not established and the container ship was operated from August 28, 1992 at Ulsan Port, which did not handle container cargo; the non-party Ulsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office sent a public notice to the effect that the export and import of container using the Ulsan Port on August 22, 192 by notifying the export-import company including the plaintiffs and the Ulsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Association of the fact that the use fee of harbor facilities would be reduced to 50%, and that the regional development tax would not be levied on the local development tax, and that there was no consent from the defendant who is the authority of the local development tax or the Gyeongnam-do Do Do Do Do , and that there was no consultation about the above public notice; the non-party 1 expressed the public opinion to the effect that it was exempted from the regional development tax without any change in the opinion of the tax authority or its superior authority; and the non-party 1 can not be seen as a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)