[2] The case holding that the court below's determination that Gap company's payment of acquisition tax to Gap company's respective branch offices is valid since it paid tax to Gap company for legitimate tax payment, and the above rejection disposition is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles since Gap company's payment of acquisition tax to Gap company's respective branch offices is valid since Gap company's tax office's payment of acquisition tax to Gap company's main office, completed registration of automobile for facility leasing cars, reported and paid acquisition tax to the tax office having jurisdiction over each branch office Gap company's main office to the tax office with jurisdiction over Gap company's main office. The tax office imposed acquisition tax on Gap company for the reason that it is the location of its main office

[2] In a case where Gap corporation operating a car leasing business, etc. completed the registration of a vehicle for the use of four branches, which are not the head office, and reported and paid acquisition tax on a facility leasing vehicle to the tax authority having jurisdiction over each branch, and the tax authority having jurisdiction over the head office imposed acquisition tax on Gap company on Gap company for the reason that the place of use of the leased vehicle is the location of the head office of Gap company, and the pertinent tax authority rejected Gap company's request for correction of acquisition tax already paid to the tax authority having jurisdiction over each branch, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that since the registration authority accepted the automobile registration for each branch as the place of use of the leased vehicle, barring special circumstances, such as the registration authority's acceptance of the automobile registration for the place of use of the leased vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the registration authority's acceptance of an application for registration for the place of use of the vehicle as the place of use of the leased vehicle constitutes the invalidity of the registration as stated in the automobile register.

1. Article 8(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that the place to pay acquisition tax on a vehicle shall be the place of registration under the Motor Vehicle Management Act: Provided, That where the place of registration differs from the place of registration, the place of registration shall be the place of payment. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Motor Vehicle Registration Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) delegated by the Motor Vehicle Management Act defines “place of use” as “a place where the owner of a motor vehicle mainly stores, manages, or uses the motor vehicle, and where the owner of a motor vehicle seeks to obtain the registration of a motor vehicle (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “the principal place of registration shall be the place of the motor vehicle owner’s principal office.”

In full view of the language and structure of the pertinent provision in addition to the legislative intent and process of amendment, the legal nature of the registration of a motor vehicle and the meaning of the place of payment of acquisition tax, and the following circumstances, if a corporation, while registering a motor vehicle, obtains a place other than its principal place of use from the registration authority and enters the place into the place of use in the motor vehicle register, the “place of use” of the instant provision, which is the place of payment of acquisition tax, refers to the place of use, not the principal place of a corporation, but the place of payment of the motor vehicle register, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the registration is void

A. Since acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax, based on the fact that it is the transfer of goods per se and imposing the tax capacity to recognize and impose it, its place of tax payment is, in principle, deemed the location of the relevant acquired goods on the basis of the acquisition date. However, the place of tax payment is a place that serves as the basis for taxpayers to perform their duties and exercise their rights under tax-related Acts, and the acquisition tax and local tax such as acquisition tax are determined by the local government to which they belong according to the place of tax payment. As such, it is necessary to determine the place of tax payment according to objective and uniform standards as possible. In particular, it is difficult for the tax authority to grasp the location of vehicles, as well as excessive administrative expenses to determine the place of tax payment. Accordingly, there is a reasonable standard for determining the place of tax payment, which is not the location of vehicles under the Automobile Management Act. Accordingly, it is necessary to interpret the concept of acquisition tax and registration tax under Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act as the acquisition tax and registration tax under the Local Tax Act to which the relevant place of tax belongs.

B. In addition, as seen earlier, the instant provision only provides for the place for the payment of acquisition tax of a vehicle as the “place for registration under the Automobile Management Act”. However, upon the amendment of the Local Tax Act by Act No. 10416 on December 27, 2010, the proviso was newly established that “where the place for registration differs from the place for the use of a vehicle, the place for tax payment shall be the place for the use of a vehicle” under the proviso. Unlike the previous provisions that are possible only from the registration authority having jurisdiction over the place for the use of a vehicle, it would be possible to process the automobile registration affairs from June 1, 2010 under Article 5(2) of the Decree on Automobile Registration as amended by Presidential Decree No. 21789, Oct. 19, 2009 without jurisdiction over the place for tax payment. In other words, the instant proviso to the Local Tax Act did not change the “place for registration actually performed” and “place for the use of a vehicle” due to the amendment of the Automobile Registration Decree.

C. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles provides that “the place where the owner of a motor vehicle mainly stores, manages, or uses the motor vehicle,” and Article 3(1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles provides that “the place where the owner of a motor vehicle keeps, manages, or uses the motor vehicle,” and that is, in principle, set forth in the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles by stipulating that “the place where the owner of a motor vehicle is an individual,” “the place where the owner of the motor vehicle is the resident registration (Article 1)” (Article 3(1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles, and the place where

In addition, according to Article 3(2) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles, if the owner of a motor vehicle is a corporation, a place other than the main office may be applied to the place of use, and in order to be recognized as a place of use, a document proving the reason must be submitted to the registration authority. In such a case, Article 27(2) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles only provides a business registration certificate or a certified copy of corporate register as a document to be submitted, and the registration authority confirms the submitted business registration certificate or a certified copy of corporate register and registers the place

As can be seen, the relevant laws and regulations regarding car registration also demand the submission of materials about human and physical facilities that the place of origin is actually inferred to the place of origin, etc., and the place of origin other than the principal place of origin such as a corporation’s branch is not required.

D. Furthermore, at the time of acquiring a vehicle, the location of the vehicle is not actually determined, and thus, the place of tax payment cannot be determined on the basis thereof. The place of tax payment of the vehicle owner’s resident registration or the place of the principal office, which is the basic place of tax payment, is also a place where the vehicle owner’s place of tax payment, is actually stored, managed, or used, rather than a place where the vehicle is actually stored, managed, or used. At the time of acquiring a vehicle, the definition of the place of tax payment under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Decree on Automobile Registration has to be interpreted as the same meaning. Accordingly, the provision on the place of tax payment under Article 3(2) of the former Rules on Automobile Registration is not a place where the vehicle owner actually stores, manages, or uses the vehicle, but a

Moreover, the place for payment of acquisition tax must be determined at the latest time when the acquisition tax is reported and paid. As such, the circumstances such as where the vehicle was actually stored, managed, or used after filing a report and paying the acquisition tax, cannot be the basis for determining the place for payment of acquisition tax, in principle. If such circumstances are deemed to be the basis for determining the place for payment of acquisition tax, the legislative intent of determining the place for payment of acquisition tax in accordance with objective and uniform standards to avoid excessive administrative expenses, and the problem that is difficult to determine where the vehicle is actually stored, managed, or used at any time or period. Moreover, there is no substantial examination of where the “place for resident registration” or the “place of principal office,” which is the basic place for the use of a corporation, is located in the place where the vehicle is stored, managed, or used. However, there is no ground for treating the vehicle differently.

2. A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the evidence.

1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of automobile facility leasing business, etc., and its head office is Seoul, and each branch office is Busan, Incheon, Changwon, and Goyang.

2) On or after January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of a vehicle with respect to an automobile for facility leasing (hereinafter “lease”) that was acquired after the said branch office as the place of use. At that time, the Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle (hereinafter “the instant acquisition tax”) to the Metropolitan City Mayor having jurisdiction over the said branch office and the Defendants delegated the collection right by the Do governor.

3) On September 10, 2012, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed the instant acquisition tax (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff is “the Plaintiff’s principal office at the time of acquisition of the instant leased vehicle pursuant to Article 3(1)2 of the former Automobile Registration Rules, since each of the above branches is a false place of business with no human and material facilities, and the use of the instant leased vehicle does not fall under the place of use as stipulated in the instant provision, and the Plaintiff’s principal office at the time of acquisition of the instant leased vehicle.”

4) On December 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the Defendants to remove the risk of double payment of acquisition tax due to the aforementioned imposition disposition by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to refund the acquisition tax already paid. However, the Defendants rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under the object of request for correction because the Plaintiff

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant acquisition tax against the Defendants is valid since the registration authority received the registration of a vehicle with the pertinent location of the leased vehicle as the place of tax payment, barring any special circumstances, such as that the pertinent disposition constitutes the invalidity of a business as long as the pertinent disposition was received with the pertinent location of the leased vehicle, and it cannot be deemed that the registration authority received the registration application with the pertinent location of the leased vehicle as the place of tax payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant acquisition tax paid as above is lawful.

3. The lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the place of payment of acquisition tax on automobiles.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the Defendant’s participation, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)