A. Subject of non-taxable practices (=tax authorities)

(b) The case recognizing the establishment of non-taxable practices where no license tax has been imposed for four (4) years due to the non-taxation interpretation by any agency granting bonded transportation licenses which is not a tax authority;

A. The practice of non-taxation is likely to be established when the tax authority did not impose it for a considerable period of time in the needs of public interest with knowledge of the fact that it can be imposed by the tax authority. Since it is clear that the tax authority of the bonded transportation licensing tax is not the head of the competent customs office but the head of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, it can be deemed that the Defendant, who is the tax authority, did not impose the license tax even though the non-taxation practice

B. The head of Incheon Customs Office, which is the authority granting the license for bonded transportation of this case, interpreted that exemption from the license tax should be granted for the purpose of public interest, and that the license tax should be granted for the bonded transportation of this case without any prior collection of the license tax payment certificate, and because the Plaintiff did not notify the head of the competent Si/Gun of the issuance of the license order, the Defendant, who is the authority granting the license tax, knew of the fact that there was no notification of the license tax imposition from the above licensing authority, and therefore, it seems that the Defendant did not impose the license tax for 4 years or 5 years since he did not know of the fact that there was no taxation of the license tax imposition. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s non-taxation provision for the license tax imposition of the Incheon Customs Office, which is the authority granting the license tax, was not imposed due to the non-taxation interpretation of the license tax imposition of the case, as in the case of the license tax of this case, unless the Defendant knew of the non-taxation provision for the license imposition of the license tax for the taxpayer.

Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 168 of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu6 delivered on June 10, 1980, 80Nu601 Delivered on September 22, 1981

Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu187 delivered on January 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Each of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Article 124 (1) 5-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which was the ground for imposing the license tax in this case, is an unlawful disposition that disregards the practice of national tax administration, which was received by the taxpayer, and that the imposition of the license tax in this case was made for four-year period from September 20, 197 to September 20, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, who is the competent authority, pointed out the problem of imposing the license tax in the public interest necessity of expanding exports, and suggested that the exclusion was made retroactively, and that there was no case where the license tax was imposed on the taxpayer, the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, cannot believe the non-taxation, and therefore, the practice of non-taxation was made for one year and two months after the abolition of the relevant applicable law, and that the imposition of the license tax in this case was made for the pertinent nine-month period immediately before the abolition of the applicable law. In other words, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not know that it was not necessary to impose the license tax ex officio.

However, the practice of non-taxation is likely to be established when the tax authority does not impose the license for a considerable period of time within the public interest needs even though it is possible to impose the license (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu6, Jun. 10, 1980). Meanwhile, Article 165 of the Local Tax Act provides that a license tax shall be paid to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Busan Special Metropolitan City or Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the address, residence, office or place of business, and Article 168 of the same Act and Article 127 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that if the licensing authority grants a license or changes the license, the license tax shall be paid to the Si/Gun under the jurisdiction of the competent authority before the issuance or service of the order, and it shall be non-taxation to the head of the competent customs office before the issuance or revocation of the license tax. According to Article 129 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the license tax shall be imposed to the head of the competent customs office prior to the establishment or revocation of the license tax.

However, examining the above provisions of the Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the testimony of the non-party witness at the court below that the court below found legitimate, the person granted the license shall pay the license tax in advance before the issuance or delivery of the order, and shall not deliver or receive the order unless the non-taxation is paid. The head of Incheon Customs Office, which is the authority granting the license of this case, shall interpret that it is reasonable to exempt the license tax in the case of the bonded transportation of this case as necessary for the public interest, without prior collection of the license tax payment certificate, and that the plaintiff would not be required to pay the license tax due to the failure of the issuance of the order to the plaintiff and the head of the competent Si/Gun. The defendant, who is the authority granting the license tax, knew of the fact that the non-taxation provision of the license tax was made by the above 19 years since he did not know that the grounds for the imposition of the license tax on the plaintiff was not imposed by the tax authority, and thus, it would be reasonable to interpret that the license tax was not imposed by the head of Incheon Customs Office.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)