This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff was unable to implement the procedure due to the failure of the plaintiff to file an application for cancellation of registration with a stolen certificate issued by the chief of the competent police station around September 1990 on the ground that the plaintiff was stolen and did not find it for a long time, accompanied by a stolen certificate of completion of registration issued by the chief of the competent police station around March 28, 1989, but the automobile tax was not received due to the delinquency in payment of automobile tax, and the imposition of automobile tax, defense tax, and education tax from March 1, 1989 up to January 1, 1993, each of the imposition dispositions of this case which the defendant allowed the plaintiff to be justified to impose automobile tax on the owner of the automobile, i.e.,, the situation where the owner can exercise ownership of the automobile, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the automobile tax should be imposed on the owner of the automobile, despite the fact that it was not legitimate to impose automobile tax on the owner of the automobile.

2. In light of the provisions of Article 196-3 of the Local Tax Act regarding automobile tax, "A person who owns an automobile in a Si/Gun shall be liable to pay automobile tax", it is clear that automobile tax is a tax having the nature of property tax imposed on the ownership of an automobile as a taxation requirement. However, Article 196-2 of the same Act provides that "an automobile means a vehicle registered or reported pursuant to the Automobile Management Act and a vehicle as determined by the Presidential Decree", and Article 5 of the Automobile Management Act provides that "the acquisition and loss of ownership of an automobile takes effect upon registration" shall take effect upon registration in the register of automobile. Thus, even if an owner of an automobile is stolen and fails to enjoy operating benefits, it shall be deemed that the owner of the automobile owns the ownership per annum unless it goes through the procedure of registration of cancellation on the register of automobile. Therefore, the obligation to pay automobile tax shall not be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9704 delivered on June 25, 191).

Nevertheless, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxation requirements of automobile tax, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant vehicle, but did not have an obligation to pay automobile tax on the grounds of its stated reasoning, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to file an application for registration of cancellation at the automobile registration office as the Plaintiff was seeking to file an application for registration of cancellation, but the attachment registration was not received due to the default of automobile tax imposed and notified in the previous year. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)