All expenses for the above reversal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered the cancellation of the registration tax of this case and the defense tax imposition disposition of this case by asserting the illegality, since the registration tax of this case can be claimed as an appeal litigation, and the cancellation of the registration tax of this case and the defense tax imposition disposition of this case shall be ordered, in principle, by the taxpayer's voluntary declaration or payment, and when such voluntary declaration or payment is made between the payer and the tax administrative agency.

However, in a case where a taxpayer makes a voluntary return and payment of taxes, deeming that the tax authority’s confirmed disposition exists at the time of tax payment is limited to taxes by the method of tax payment, and in a case of taxes by the method of tax return, the act of receiving taxes by the tax authority is merely a factual act, and there is no room to recognize the existence of confirmative disposition. However, registration tax under the Local Tax Act uses the term “taxation” as to registration tax, but the registration tax requires the taxpayer to pay in advance before registration or enrollment and attach a written notice of receipt and a written confirmation of receipt to documents concerning registration (see Articles 90 and 91 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act) while the tax base is determined by the taxpayer’s report, but the tax base is determined by the tax authority to collect the amount of tax by the tax base under the above Act only if the taxpayer fails to file a return or falls short of the tax base under Articles 130 through 149 of the Local Tax Act (see Articles 130 and 151 of the Local Tax Act).

On the other hand, the defense tax paid by a person liable for tax payment is the additional tax of the registration tax, and it shall be deemed that the tax base and tax amount are determined by the tax return method, such as the registration tax under the provisions of Article 5(1) of the Defense Tax Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which interpret otherwise, although it cannot be deemed that there was a defendant's confirmed disposition on the registration tax and defense tax of this case paid by the plaintiff, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on confirmatory disposition, and thus, the argument on

3. Ultimately, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is unlawful and thus, the part against the defendant should be reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the party members to self-market, the lawsuit as to the above part of the reversal is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit as to this part shall be borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by

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