Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4, etc. of this case brought an action against the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 as an unlawful action without following the procedure of re-audit, request for examination, etc. under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act regarding the disposition of imposing local taxes. However, in the complaint, the parties concerned on July 6, 1974, and request for correction of the purport of the claim, although the plaintiffs are seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposing local taxes [the purpose of revocation], it is obvious that the plaintiffs are seeking the revocation as follows, and the revocation is sought to the effect that such revocation is invalid, there is no need to go through the procedure of re-audit, request for examination, etc. under the Local Tax Act's assertion before filing the lawsuit. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is groundless without examining

2. Judgment on the merits

The plaintiffs completed registration on the list of attorneys-at-law kept in the Ministry of Justice prior to the commencement of their duties as attorneys-at-law and opened an attorney-at-law office from January 1, 1973 to December 31 of the same year, which is the taxable period. Accordingly, the defendants have no dispute between the parties that impose the regular license tax amount for the year 1974, as stated in the purport of the claim under Article 161 (1) of the Local Tax Act [Class 4 (30) of the Enforcement Decree) and Article 124 (1) (Article 124 (1) (Article 124 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

According to Article 161 (1) of the Local Tax Act, among the provisions on the basis of each disposition, the plaintiffs merely provide that the license tax shall be imposed only when it comes to other licenses, and Article 124 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the kinds of other licenses under the proviso of Article 161 (1) of the Act shall be classified as follows. Each disposition is imposed pursuant to Article 161 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. However, the items of the tax are imposed only by law, and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act are invalid under Article 16 (1) of the Local Tax Act (Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act) and Article 161 (2) of the Local Tax Act (Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act) and Article 164 (1) of the Local Tax Act (Article 166 (1) of the Local Tax Act) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Article 166 of the Local Tax Act).14).

Article 124 (1) (No. 4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that a license shall be granted under the provisions of this Section unless the provisions of Article 124 (1) (No. 6) are invalid. Since the above provision of the Local Tax Act provides that a license shall include an administrative disposition to cancel the establishment or prohibition of a right to the specific business facilities or acts regardless of the name, and an administrative disposition such as acceptance, registration, designation, inspection, examination, etc. of a report shall be made on the list of attorneys kept in the Ministry of Justice pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and a report shall be made without delay to the Ministry of Justice and its affiliated councils pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 (3) of the Local Tax Act, and the above registration or report shall be made without delay on the list of attorneys-at-law's license or establishment of a non-permanent administrative disposition [No. 160 of the Local Tax Act's license or establishment of a non-permanent administrative disposition on the above list of attorneys-at-law]

Thus, prior to the commencement of the plaintiffs' duties as a lawyer, the registration on the list of attorneys-at-law kept in the Ministry of Justice and the establishment of an attorney-at-law office for a period from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973, which is the taxable period of this case, and the defendant's business as an attorney-at-law is lawful each disposition imposed on the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 161 (1) of the Local Tax Act [Class 4 (30) and Article 124 (1) (Class 4-6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are not invalid in violation of the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution, not the provisions of Article 124 (1) (Class 6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, each disposition is an illegal defect and its degree of defects is a disposition of invalidation, and thus, the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of such invalidity is dismissed, and the litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them

Judge Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge) expected number of winners