A. Requirements for the application of the principle of good faith to tax authorities' actions in tax and legal relations, and requirements for establishing non-taxable practices under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(b) The case holding that the taxation authority cannot be deemed to be subject to the zero tax rate or the non-taxation mark on the ground that the tax authority, which received a tax invoice prepared on the premise that the value-added tax is exempted from the value-added tax without collecting the value-added tax from the opposite contractual party at the time of early withdrawal for several years, did not state the payment issue of the value-added tax;

A. In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must name a public opinion statement that is the object of trust to taxpayers. In addition, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authority must not impose taxes due to any special circumstance despite its knowledge that it is able to impose taxes on the matter. Such public opinion or opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but it should be deemed that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the non-taxable condition for a considerable period, unlike mere omission of taxation.

B. Although the Plaintiff prepared and issued a tax invoice on the premise that the Plaintiff did not collect value-added tax from the other party at the time of payment of early withdrawal fees and did not collect value-added tax from the other party at the time of payment of the aforementioned fees, and the Defendant also submitted the tax invoice together, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have issued a statement of view that the issue of payment of value-added tax was not discussed by the Defendant, solely based on the fact that the issue of payment of value-added tax was not discussed

(a)Article 18(3)(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 15(b) of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu475 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong198, 107) 89Nu5522 delivered on November 28, 1989 (Gong1990, 175) 89Nu3816 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2310), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1957 delivered on September 29, 1990 (Gong1989, 1601) 89Nu862 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong190, 1606)

[Defendant-Appellant] Cho Jong-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14122 delivered on October 16, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and second points:

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax law relations, the tax authority should name a public opinion statement that is the object of taxpayer's trust. In addition, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there exists an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period of time, and there must be an intention not to impose taxes due to any special circumstance even though the tax authority knew that it is able to impose taxes on the matter, and such public opinion and opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but in order to establish an implied expression, there must be circumstances to deem that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu398, Mar. 12, 1985; 89Nu475, Nov. 10, 197; 89Nu3816, Oct. 10, 1990).

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds that the plaintiff's submission of each reply of the National Tax Service mentioned above is not subject to zero tax rate or non-taxation, on the ground that the plaintiff did not collect value-added tax from the opposite contractual party at the time of early delivery of early payment of payment of payment of payment for several years, and that there was no dispute about the payment of value-added tax by the defendant, even though the plaintiff did not receive value-added tax from the opposite contractual party at the time of payment of payment of payment of payment of payment of payment of payment for several years, the defendant cannot be seen as being subject to zero tax rate or ordering the opinion that it is subject to zero tax rate or non-taxation. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out.

The precedents can not be seen as inconsistent with the above opinion. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that early departure charges incurred in the taxable period of this case were incurred by concluding a loading contract with the internal company in the judgment of the court below and providing loading and unloading services accordingly, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff provided loading and unloading services to ocean-going ships and received from the owner of the ship as the price. The above fact-finding by the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, and the lack of reasoning.

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 Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)