[면허세부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Final Authority
Msan Market
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The imposition of a license tax of KRW 6,00 on October 2, 1986 by the defendant against the plaintiff on October 2, 1986 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
As a certified tax accountant for business opening, the Plaintiff established an office in Msan-dong 167-1, Msan-dong 167.6.12, 1986. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred the office to Msan-dong 260, and accepted the report of the relocation of the office to the Minister of Finance and Economy on October 2, 1986. The Defendant's acceptance of the above report by the Minister of Finance and Economy on October 2, 1988 constitutes a license (acceptance of the report) under Article 160 (1) of the Local Tax Act. The fact that Article 161 of the same Act, Article 124 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 164 of the Local Tax Act, Article 164 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 164 of the same Act
Article 160 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "acceptance of a report" as an object of imposition of license tax shall be limited to cases where an administrative disposition is rendered simply under the name of the taxpayer for convenience of the residents. The relocation of a tax accountant's office is not a change of the permitted matters but a simple change of address as provided under Article 124-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the defendant imposed license tax on a person subject to imposition of a license tax by extended interpretation or analogical application of the tax law as it is unfair, and even if the license tax is changed from time to time, it violates the principle of fair taxation, and thus, it is unreasonable for the defendant to impose license tax on a person subject to imposition of a license tax under the Local Tax Act by applying the same type of tax exemption under the Local Tax Act as an administrative disposition, such as transfer of a license tax to time without a specific type of license tax exemption. This is contrary to the principle of free taxation, first of all, Article 161 (2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 124 (1) of the Local Tax Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.
July 22, 1987
Judges Seo Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-tae Kim