1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff applied for the cancellation of registration to the automobile management business office, accompanied by a theft report certificate issued by the chief of the competent police station on February 7, 1986 and did not deal with the cancellation of registration due to the clerical error of the person in charge, although the plaintiff applied for the cancellation of registration again on May 25, 1987 after confirming the contents of the application, the above application was returned for unpaid automobile tax due to the failure to pay the automobile tax. The plaintiff immediately requested the scrapping of the automobile of this case on June 20, 1988 and reported to the automobile management business office on July 25 of the same year. Further, since each of the above dispositions of this case was submitted to the plaintiff each of the above taxation dispositions, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff could not be seen as being liable to pay the automobile tax of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the automobile tax of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's remaining owner in the automobile register did not exist.

2. However, since automobile tax is the tax of the nature of property tax imposed on the ownership of the automobile as a taxation requirement, and the license tax is also imposed on the owner of the automobile, even if the owner of the automobile was stolen, it shall not be exempted from the obligation to pay the automobile tax and the license tax because the owner still holds the ownership unless it has gone through the registration cancellation procedure

On the other hand, according to the records, only the fact that the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the vehicle theft with the chief of the competent police station around December 20, 1985, and later filed an application for the registration of the vehicle theft on February 7, 1987, and again filed an application for the registration of the re-registration of the vehicle again on May 25 of the same year, but the application was rejected due to the attachment, failure to inspect the vehicle, etc., and there is no other evidence supporting the fact that the registration of the plaintiff's registration of the above automobile was not registered as a person in charge of clerical error or the plaintiff later completed the automobile scrapping procedure, as acknowledged by the court below.

Ultimately, in this case where it is not recognized that the plaintiff had properly followed the registration of cancellation or the registration of automobile scrapping during the above taxable period after the theft of the above automobile, the plaintiff as the owner of the above automobile shall not be exempted from the obligation to pay the automobile tax or the license tax. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxation requirements of automobile tax and the judgment of the value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)