(a) Whether carrying out by proxy civil petitions and receiving prescribed fees falls under the supply of services subject to value-added tax;

(b)the omission of taxation and establishment of non-taxable practices for a given period;

(a) In a case where a so-called civil petition agent office is established at the request of the civil petitioners who wish to obtain various documents such as certificates, certificates, and certified copies of the register, and receives income in return for the provision of services with the above contents as requested by the civil petitioners, and at the request of various government offices and educational institutions, it constitutes a supply of services subject to value-added tax.

B. The fact that there was a omission of taxation for a specified period alone cannot be deemed as having been a practice of national tax accepted by taxpayers as a general rule under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there is room for recognizing that a practice of non-taxation has been established when, even though the tax authority knew of the fact that it could be taxed, there was a speech or behavior suggesting the taxpayer to impose a non-taxation, and there is a circumstance to deem that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to

(a) Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu153 delivered on April 26, 1983, 84Nu545 delivered on May 28, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu555 delivered on December 3, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts based on the evidences of the city that the plaintiff established a so-called civil petition agent office which provides various documents such as certificates, confirmation documents, copy of register, etc. at the request of various government offices and educational institutions, etc. and on behalf of civil petitioners for the work requested by them, with due consideration of the required telephone fees, transportation expenses, etc., and received 9,184,000 won in the business year of 1981 and 22,982,40 won in the business year of 1982. The court below found the above facts and found that the supply of services constitutes a supply of services subject to value-added tax, in light of the amount of the plaintiff's revenue, number of employees, business situation, etc. which are determined by the prior purport of oral argument, and determined that the supply of services constitutes a supply of services subject to value-added tax without receiving any consideration under Article 7 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and did not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence or facts finding.

2. Regarding the second ground of appeal, the plaintiff's assertion that value-added tax is exempted because the service supplied by the plaintiff constitutes temporary allowances or other similar services according to the achievements of the day under Article 12 (1) 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 35 (1) (l) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is a new fact that the plaintiff claims for the first time in the final appeal, and it is obvious that the plaintiff did not claim in the court below, and therefore, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal as to

3. Regarding the third point, the fact that there was an omission of taxation for a specified period alone cannot be deemed to have existed a national tax practice generally accepted by taxpayers under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there is room to find that the practice of non-taxation has been established when, even though the tax authority knew of the fact that there was an omission of taxation for a specified period, there was a speech or behavior suggesting the taxpayer to impose a non-taxation, and there is a circumstance to find that the taxpayer's trust is not unreasonable by failing to impose it for a considerable period of time in the needs for public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu153, Apr. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu545, May 28

The court below held that it is difficult to view that the plaintiff suggested the defendant's speech and behavior to impose value-added tax even though he knows that the plaintiff could impose value-added tax on the plaintiff's workplace even though he had received a registration certificate from the defendant, or that no value-added tax was imposed on the plaintiff's workplace until the tax disposition in this case, and that the plaintiff, the taxpayer, has believed it as a non-taxation subject to non-taxation. Thus, in light of the records, the court below did not err in incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles in light of the process of taking such measures, and there is no proof as to the grounds for meeting the requirements for establishing non-taxation practices. Thus, the court below's decision that points out the lawsuit is different from the case in this case, and therefore it is not proper to this case.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)