(a) Whether the phonogram is exempted from tax under Article 12 (1) 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act, in case where it is sold to a single supply unit with the explanatory books and musical books attached thereto; and

B. Requirements for establishing non-taxable practices under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. In a case where a person sells 40 music records of the world class music in the unit of a single unit of supply, one of the 40 music records book and one of the music book book attached with 20 music book and 3 music book, it is the sale of piracy books attached to the music book, and it is not the supply of books subject to tax exemption under Article 12 (1) 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 32 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the duty exemption warrant under the above Article

B. 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 trusted to taxpayers. In addition, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there is an objective fact that has not been taxed for a considerable period of time, and there is a need to not 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 official opinion or opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but there is a circumstance to view that the tax authority expressed its intent not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation.

(a) Article 12(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17744 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 567) 93Nu2258 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3146) 90Nu8947 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1807) 90Nu10384 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2442)

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu1836 delivered on July 20, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, based on its adopted evidence, sold 1 books and 2,3 books of documentary records and 1 books of documentary records with the right to 1 books of documentary records and 2,00 copies of documentary records and 40 books of documentary records, etc., and held that the plaintiff sold documentary records and 1 books of documentary records with the right to 2,00 books of documentary records and 2,00 books of documentary records, and that the plaintiff did not supply books of documentary records subject to tax exemption under Article 12 (1) 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 32 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below did not accept the duty-free notice under the above provision of the above Act. According to the relevant evidence and the records, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and there

2. On the second ground for appeal

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 the public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer. In addition, in order to establish the non-taxable practice under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authority must not impose taxes on the taxpayer due to any special circumstance while not only objective facts exist that have not been taxed over a considerable period, but also knowledge that the tax authority can impose taxes on the matter. Such official opinion or opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but in order to determine that there is an implied expression, there should 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, unlike mere omission of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8947 delivered on May 28, 191).

In light of relevant evidence and records and the legal principles as seen above, the court below's decision that the non-taxation practice cannot be deemed to have been established on the records of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below, and there is no reason to interpret.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of relevant evidence, records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below's decision that the sound records of this case sold by the plaintiff is merely an incidental supply to the supply of the above sound records, which is the main transaction goods, and thus included in the supply of the above sound records is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

Examining and comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with records, the court below's decision that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a justifiable reason for failing to file a return under Articles 18 (1) and 19 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason to

5. On the fifth ground for appeal

No theory of lawsuit is accepted because it is nothing more than a controversy over the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts not alleged in the court below.

6. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)