(a) Criteria for determining whether a taxable article is a "melting", which is a special consumption tax;

(b) The case holding that the case falls under “a carpets attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Consumption Tax Act” as provided in Chapter 4 [Attachment Table 1] 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act;

(c) the requirements for the good faith or non-taxable practice prescribed in Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the burden of proof therefor;

A. There is no provision in the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4809 of Dec. 22, 1994) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1447 of Dec. 31, 1994) with respect to the concept of "melting taxable goods," which are special consumption tax, it shall be reasonably determined whether the pertinent goods fall under taxable goods, by comprehensively taking into account the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the legislative intent of the Special Consumption Tax Act, the form, purpose of use

B. The case holding that it is reasonable to see that the article falls under category 1 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1 (2) 4 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1 [Attachment 1] 4 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act and Article 1 [Attachment 1] 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to regard it as a "made sheet" because the size of the article after the article was cut is hard, because it was inappropriate to use it as an interior decoration such as a "made sheet"; (b) it was sold as a Kapet sheet after being cut, to consumers after being cut, and (c) it was one of its legislative purposes to prevent consumption of the spawn goods; and (d) it is reasonable to see that the article falls under category 1 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 1 (2) 1 of the former Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 4 [Attachment 1]

C. In order to establish the good faith principle or non-taxable practice stipulated in Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there is an objective fact that the tax was not imposed on certain matters over a long-term period, and the tax authority’s knowledge that it would not impose tax on certain matters under any special circumstance, and such intent would be externally and explicitly expressed, and the taxpayer should assert and prove it.

(a) Class 1(b) of Class 4 of Article 1(2) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4809, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 1 [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1447, Dec. 31, 1994); Article 1 [Attachment Table 1] Class 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu268 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1347). (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5249 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 637). Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Nu9360 Delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 285) (Gong1992, 2911) delivered on September 8, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12919 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1104).

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14888 delivered on August 1, 200

Head of Busan Customs Office and four others

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu6485 delivered on April 28, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 1 of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides for taxable objects and tax rates of the special consumption tax. Article 1 of the same Act provides that "any goods subject to taxation of the special consumption tax (hereinafter "taxable goods") shall be one of the goods subject to Class 4 Chapter 1 (amended by Act No. 4809, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply). The items and types of taxable goods shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. The items and categories of taxable goods are Class 1 (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14474, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Class 4 of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act." Since the concept of "melting goods" does not have any provision in the above Act, the legislative intent of the Special Consumption Tax Act, the type and use of the goods concerned, and other important characteristics of the goods (see Article 178(7)78 of the same Act).

According to the facts established by the court below and records, the taxable goods of this case are somewhat different from their ingredients, but they are produced in Belgium 1, and they form a 3 to 5m file (a cap, VCOS YALN) on the surface of the Belgium 1, which is hard to be used in the above Belgium 2, and they constitute an inappropriate standard for sale of the above Ba 1, 60cc of Ba 2, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2000, 3000,000, 4000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In order to establish the good faith principle or non-taxable practice prescribed in Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is interpreted that there exists an objective fact that there has been no taxation on certain matters over a long-term period, and that the taxation authority is required to externally or implicitly indicate such intent, with the knowledge that the taxation authority is able to impose tax on such matters, and that it is required to externally and explicitly indicate the taxpayer’s assertion and proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu9360, Oct. 22, 1991; 91Nu9824, Mar. 31, 1992; 91Nu13670, Sept. 8, 1992; 90Nu10384, Jul. 27, 1993).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the head of Busan Customs Office sent an information on the importation and analysis of the goods similar to the taxable goods of this case imported by the plaintiffs on December 13, 1989 to the head of the same customs office who does not fall under Class 57 of the Tariff Schedules. The Administrator of the Korea Customs Service who supervises the defendants on June 1, 1991 notified the related agencies such as the Minister of Finance and Economy after the appraisal of the Central Tariff Classification Committee by the head of Busan Customs Office, etc., and the fact that the defendant did not impose the special consumption tax on the taxable goods of this case imported by the plaintiffs for several years can not be seen as being a clear indication of the non-taxation practice of the taxable goods of this case. In addition, according to the records (No. 8-1 through 8 of evidence No.), the head of the Busan Customs Office could not be seen as a violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the good faith or non-taxation practice of this case, and the result of the analysis of the taxable goods of Chapter 58 of the tariff schedule.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)