According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant deemed the plaintiff as a joint and several tax obligor for the mid-term acquisition tax of the land owner and imposed the mid-term acquisition tax on the plaintiff in accordance with the statement of No. 1-1 (detailed statement of delinquent acquisition tax) and the purport of oral argument.

However, the above evidence No. 1-1 presented the plaintiff's delinquent details by year in order to submit them to the litigation materials of this case in light of the method and contents of the statement. However, even if examining the contents of this document, it is insufficient for the defendant to regard the plaintiff as a joint and several tax obligor of the mid-term acquisition tax other than the designated borrower and to regard the plaintiff as a separate tax payer of the mid-term acquisition tax. Thus, the court below cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that recognized the facts without legitimate evidence. This point is justified.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

After recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff’s delinquency in automobile tax as of the date of the instant disposition, the lower court determined that the Defendant could claim the delinquency in automobile tax as a ground for additional disposition along with the initial reason for disposition, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of the mid-term acquisition tax is not indicated as the ground for rejection, but is about the fact that the said delinquency in payment of the automobile tax is a delinquent local tax and the subject of the said taxation is about the same part of the taxation.

However, the disposition agency may add or modify new grounds for disposition to the same extent, and the court also cannot recognize the fact that there is no identity of the original grounds for disposition as the grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu396, Oct. 25, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu694, Jul. 21, 1987). In this case, the delinquency in payment of the mid-term acquisition tax, which is the initial grounds for disposition, and the automobile tax, which is the grounds for disposition added thereafter, are different from each other in terms of tax items, taxation year, taxpayer status (joint and several taxpayers), and the basic facts cannot be deemed identical. The fact that the delinquency in payment of the mid-term acquisition tax or the automobile tax, such as the delinquency in payment of local taxes, is related to the middle-term acquisition tax, and that it is related to the middle-term entry subject to taxation, is insufficient to recognize the identity of basic facts.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the judgment on the identity of the reason for the disposition in question, which maintained the disposition in this case on the grounds that the identity of the original reason for the disposition is not recognized. Therefore, this issue is justified.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)