The case holding that the disposition imposing value-added tax in this case is not contrary to the principle of good faith on the ground that the taxation authority's public opinion that is exempted from value-added tax did not know about the payment of value-added tax for one year.

Even if the Plaintiff received, delivered, and submitted an invoice prepared on the premise that the value-added tax was exempted in the course of trading imported seedlings, and the Defendant, the tax authority, also, submitted the above tax exemption invoice to the Defendant, at that time, did not mention the payment of the value-added tax by the Defendant. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s investigation tax base and the amount of sales of imported seedlings was included in the revenue amount at the time of determining the Plaintiff’s corporate tax base and the amount of sales of the imported seedlings, the investigating officials belonging to the Defendant omitted the review of the tax base on the ground that the Plaintiff was the value-added tax-exempt business operator, and did not state his opinion on whether to pay the value-added tax on the imported seedlings sales amount, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have issued a public statement on the premise that the supply of imported seedlings is subject to the exemption of the value-added

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Attorney Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4934 delivered on November 15, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that when the plaintiff imports imported seedlings or purchased them from the non-party mobilization seeds and seedlings Co., Ltd. without the burden of value-added tax and received a tax invoice prepared on the premise that the value-added tax is exempted, and even if the plaintiff sells them, an invoice prepared on the premise that the non-party is exempted from value-added tax without the transaction of the value-added tax, and there was no debate about the payment of value-added tax by the defendant at that time, and that the plaintiff's tax base of corporate tax for the business year of 1982 and the tax assessment standard of corporate tax was included in 26,806,166 won among the plaintiff's revenue, but it did not affect the plaintiff's tax base of value-added tax because the plaintiff's investigation officer stated "value-added tax exemption business operator" in the column of review of the tax base of evidence No. 3-value added tax, but it did not know that the above investigation officer's amount of value-added tax was not clear, and it did not affect the plaintiff's sales of the above revenue seeds and seedlings.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)