Requirements to apply the principle of good faith to tax authorities' acts.

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 list that is the object of taxpayer's trust, the taxpayer's trust in the name of the tax authority should not be attributable to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer must trust the opinion list, what is it should be done by the taxpayer, and the tax authority's disposition against the opinion list should result in infringing the taxpayer's interest by infringing the taxpayer's interest.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000Gu3512 Delivered on March 16, 2001

1. The decision of the court of first instance is revoked.2. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 327,984,080 for the plaintiff on November 15, 1999 and KRW 240,04,04,040 for the corporate tax belonging to the business year 1997 for the plaintiff on November 15, 199, and KRW 170,116,80 for the corporate tax belonging to the business year 198 shall be revoked.

1. Details of taxation; and

"가. 원고는 축전지 및 건전지와 기타 전지 제조 . 판매업, 전기기계기구의 제조 . 판매업, 자동차부품 제조 . 판매업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로서 1995. 12. 20. 소외 ㅇㅇ시로부터 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 1,014 공장용지 37,222.6㎡ 등 4필지의 공장용지 총면적 89,774.3㎡(이하이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 ㅇㅇ공업단지 입주계약에 의하여 취득한 뒤 공장건설에 착공하지 않고 있다가 1998. 8. 12. 소외 한국토지공사(이하소외 공사'라고 한다)에게 이 사건 토지를 양도하였다.", "나. 피고는 원고가 이 사건 토지를 취득한 후 업무에 직접 사용하지 아니하고 양도하였으므로 이를 당시 시행되던 법인세법령에 규정된 비업무용 부동산에 해당하는 것으로 보고, 원고의 1996 사업연도, 1997 사업연도, 1998 사업연도의 각 소득금액 계산에 있어서 차입금의 이자 중 일정 금액(1996년 금 803,501,074원, 1997년 금 789,390,540원, 1998년 금 618,377,728원)을 손금에 불산입하는 것이 타당한데도 원고가 이를 손금에 산입함으로써 기 납부한 법인세가 과소 납부되었다고 판단하여 손금에 불산입하는 것으로 경정 계산한 결과, 추가납부할 세액을 1996 사업연도 귀속 법인세 금 327,984,080원, 1997 사업연도 귀속 법인세 금 240,004,040원, 1998 사업연도 귀속 법인세 금 170,116,800원으로 결정하여 1999. 11. 15. 원고에게 이를 부과 . 고지하였다(이하이 사건 과세처분'이라고 한다).",[증거] : 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제7호증, 변론의 전취지

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 1997년 말경 소위 IMF 경제위기 사태로 인하여 자금사정이 악화되어 기존의 자산인 이 사건 토지를 매각하여야 하는 상황에 처하게 되었는데, 재정경제원 장관은 1998. 6. 9. 기업들을 지원하기 위한 조치로서 구조조정을 촉진하기 위하여 법인 또는 개인이 1999. 12. 31. 이전에 비업무용 부동산을 매각하거나 해당 부동산을 취득하면 모두 업무용으로 인정해 주기로 하고 법인세법시행규칙을 개정하여 이러한 내용의 시행규칙을 같은 해 6. 말경 공포 . 시행하기로 하였다 라고 공표하여, 원고는 위와 같은 정부의 공표 내지 확약을 믿고 새로운 공장부지로 사용할 목적으로 매입하였던 이 사건 토지를 1998. 7. 15. 소외 공사에게 공시지가의 60% 내지 70%에 불과한 금 4,822,030,000원에 매도하고 그 매매대금 전액을 소외 공사로 하여금 1998. 8. 12. 원고의 채권은행인 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ은행에게 직접 지급하도록 함으로써 금융기관 부채 상환용으로 사용하였는바, 재정경제부장관은 위 공표와 동일한 내용으로 법인세법시행규칙을 개정하면서 다만 그 시행시기를 위 공표와 달리 1998. 8. 22.로 정하여 원고는 단 10일의 차이로 인하여 개정된 시행규칙의 적용을 받을 수 없게 되었고, 그 결과 이 사건 토지가 비업무용 부동산에 해당됨으로 인하여 이 사건 과세처분을 받는 불이익을 당하게 되었으므로 이 사건 과세처분은 신의성실의 원칙에 반하여 위법하다.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of the announcement of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and the Plaintiff’s real estate disposition

The following facts can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleading to Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, and testimony of the first instance court Kim Jong-seok.

"(가) 1997년 말경 소위 IMF 경제위기 사태로 인하여 국내기업의 재무구조가 악화되자, 재정경제원은 1998. 6. 9. 기업의 구조조정을 위한 부동산 매각을 지원하기 위하여 법인이 구조조정을 위하여 1999. 12. 31. 이전에 부동산을 매각하는 경우와 다른 법인 또는 개인이 구조조정을 위하여 1999. 12. 31. 이전에 매각하는 부동산을 매입하는 경우, 그 부동산을 비업무용 부동산에서 제외하는 것으로 법인세법시행규칙을 개정하기로 하였고, 그 개정안은 법제처 심사를 거쳐 6월 말경 공포 . 시행될 예정 이라는 내용을 보도자료를 통하여 발표하였고(이하이 사건 발표'라고 한다), 그 무렵 그러한 내용이 신문 등 언론매체를 통하여 일반 국민에게 보도되었다.", "(나) 원고는 당초 기존 공장의 협소함을 해결하고 생산을 증대하기 위한 새로운 공장부지를 확보할 목적으로 이 사건 토지를 취득하였으나, IMF 경제위기 사태로 인한 고금리와 금융기관의 차임금 조기상환 요구 등 금융시장의 경색으로 자금 조달에 큰 애로를 겪고 있던 중 이 사건 발표를 접하게 되자 이를 믿고 신규 투자를 포기하고 보유 부동산 매각을 통한 부채 상환 및 자금 조달을 하기 위하여 1998. 7. 15. 소외 공사(소외 공사는 1998. 4. 14.자 경제대책조정회의에서 결정된금융 . 기업 구조개혁 촉진방안'에 따라 그 동안 기업이 금융기관 부채 상환을 목적으로 매각하는 토지를 취득하여 왔다)에게 이 사건 토지를 매매대금 4,822,030,000원에 매도하였다.",(다) 위 매도 당시 원고와 소외 공사는 소외 공사가 원고에게 지급할 모든 매매대금을 원고가 지급을 동의한 금융기관에 직접 지급함으로써 매매대금 전액을 금융기관 부채상환용으로 사용하기로 약정하였는데, 이에 따라 소외 공사는 1998. 8. 12. 매매대금 전액을 원고가 지정한 소외 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ은행에게 차입금의 상환자금으로 지급하였다.

(D) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was merely sent a newspaper report to the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and did not verify whether the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act was amended on June 1998 and promulgated to the National Tax Service or the competent district tax office, etc. at the time of the above sale.

(2) Amendment to the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

(A) According to Article 18(2)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 41 of Aug. 22, 1998), a real estate which was enforced before the announcement of this case by the Ministry of Finance and Economy was not used directly for the corporation’s unique business without justifiable grounds, such as alteration of urban planning under the Urban Planning Act, within five years after it acquired the site for factory under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act.

Article 18 (5) 21 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 1999), Article 1 and Article 4 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 1999), and Article 40-3 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act No. 5584 of December 28, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") after the announcement of this case, real estate acquired before June 30, 1997, which satisfies the requirements set forth in subparagraph (a) of the above subparagraph has been excluded from the reserves for non-business use only in cases where real estate acquired by submitting a financial structure improvement plan for the organization composed of financial institutions with claims against the corporation, and has been transferred from the reserves for approval after December 19, 198.

(1) Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "it shall be done in good faith when a taxpayer performs his/her duties. This shall also apply to the performance of his/her duties." In general, the requirement for the application of the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of the tax authorities in tax and legal relations is the first public opinion that the tax authorities are the object of trust, second, there is no reason for the taxpayer to believe that the expression of opinion is legitimate, third, there is no violation of the principle of trust and good faith by the tax authorities to dispose of real estate against the above expression of opinion, and fourth, it is against the principle of trust and good faith that the tax authorities’s disposal of real estate should be deemed unlawful if the tax authorities meet all such requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du2713, Aug. 18, 2000). It is necessary to determine whether the pertinent public opinion of the tax authorities is an entity responsible for non-business purposes under the amended Corporate Tax Act’s reliance doctrine.

② In light of the subject, contents, and background of the second requirement, it is deemed that there is no reason for the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, to have trusted the expression of opinion of the Ministry of Finance and Economy through the announcement of this case. Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, who had the intent to enjoy the effect of amending the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act following the announcement of this case, was an amendment to the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and promulgated in the sale of the land of this case, as planned in the announcement of this case. Although it can be easily confirmed by visiting the Official Gazette or inquiring at the National Tax Service or the competent tax office, etc., the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, could not be found to have any reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to confirm whether the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act was amended and implemented. However, even if it can be easily confirmed through the announcement of this case, it is not a reason for the Plaintiff to trust the said expression of opinion of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, it is nothing more than a mistake that did not confirm whether the tax authority followed the measures

③ On July 15, 1998, the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (the end of June 1998), which was subsequent to the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (the end of June 1998) to receive the effect of the amendment of the Corporate Tax Act for the repayment of debts and financing through the sale of real estate held by the Plaintiff who believed the contents of the announcement in this case, is identical to the facts that the Plaintiff sold the land in this case to the Non-Party Corporation. Therefore, the third requirement in this case is also satisfied.

④ On the fourth requirement, the Ministry of Finance and Economy amended the Corporate Tax Act’s amended regulations with the same content as the announcement of this case, and the time of enforcement of the said regulations, unlike the expression of opinion, set on August 22, 1998, which was later two months after the end of June 1998, which was the enforcement date of the announcement of this case, resulting in the Plaintiff’s disadvantage without the effect of the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act due to the difference of ten days, as seen above. Therefore, the fourth requirement of this case is also deemed to have been met.

(3) Therefore, in this case, since the requirements for the application of the principle of trust and good faith in tax legal relations are all satisfied, the instant taxation disposition is therefore unlawful against the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.