This case generally accepted the taxpayer's practice of national tax administration

The defendant did not impose goods tax and special consumption tax for more than 6 years since the commencement of the manufacture and sale of the electric temperature water which the plaintiff produced and sold, not the goods identical to the sugar under the former Goods Tax Act and the Special Consumption Tax Act, and the public officials belonging to the defendant interpreted the above electric temperature water was not the goods identical to sugar water, so the practice of non-taxation has not been levied retroactively.

Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1(2) of the Special Consumption Tax Act

New Power Co., Ltd.

The head of the tax office of Cheongyang

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu564 delivered on December 10, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff obtained the approval of the type of electric temperature water from the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration on April 20, 1973 and manufactured and sold the electric temperature water from May 12 of the same year. The defendant, on December 7, 1979, is in accordance with Articles 1 (1) and 1 (6) of the former Tax Act and Article 1 (1) 6 of the former Tax Act (Abolition. 1 of the same Act) and other similar organizations using electric heat, which are different from that of the former Tax Act, which are subject to the imposition of the special consumption tax in this case. Since the former Tax Act or the Special Consumption Tax Act, which was not imposed on the taxpayer for the reason that it was not imposed on the same kind of tax due to the previous tax law or the special consumption tax law, the original defendant did not have any unlawful interpretation of the above tax law as to the taxpayer's property rights under Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Tax Act and its new tax law or the special consumption tax law that was not imposed on the taxpayer's property rights in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)