Ulsan District Court-2014-Guhap-964 (23 April 2015)

Since it is difficult to recognize that the name of public inspection was given, the rejection disposition of confirming the fact of the transaction of this case is legitimate.

Since the tax invoice of this case does not contain an official statement, it does not constitute dnoql with the principle of trust protection, nor is it likely to significantly undermine the interests of a third party. Thus, the rejection disposition of confirming the fact of transactions of this case is legitimate.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Tax Invoice]

2015Nu21308. Cancellation of a disposition of denial of confirmation of transactions

d X-○

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap964 Decided 23, 2015

on October 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition rejecting the confirmation of the fact of transactions made to the plaintiff on April 5, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's ruling is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following two paragraphs to the judgment on the violation of the principle of the protection of trust, which the plaintiff asserted again in the trial. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of violation of the principle of protecting trust

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant visited the Defendant immediately after obtaining approval for the use of the building of this case. At the time, if the Defendant’s public official was unable to obtain the tax invoice even after the completion of the construction, the Plaintiff did not apply for the confirmation of the fact of transaction. The Plaintiff trusted this and did not apply for the confirmation of the fact of transaction, and the Defendant’s refusal of the confirmation of the fact of transaction of this case was unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. Determination

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of administrative agencies, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, that the opinion statement of the administrative agency is justifiable and trusted, there is no cause attributable to the individual, third, that individual should have trusted that the opinion statement of the administrative agency, and third, that administrative agency should have done any act against the above opinion statement, and fourth, that administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement, thereby infringing on the interests of the individual who trusted that opinion statement of the opinion statement of the administrative agency. If any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is unlawful as an act contrary to the principle of the protection of trust, unless there is a possibility

With respect to the instant case, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant issued a public opinion statement to the Plaintiff in relation to the confirmation of the fact of transaction on the sole basis of the testimony of this case by the public health team, the witness of this case, and the written evidence Nos. 38, 39, and 41, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.