자동차세부과처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of each automobile tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which the Defendant filed with the Plaintiff. The first instance court dismissed the part seeking revocation of the imposition of each automobile tax stated in the separate sheet No. 10, 12, and 13, and accepted the claim for revocation of the imposition of each automobile tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1, 14.
Therefore, since only the defendant appealed against the part of the loss, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of each automobile tax as stated in the attached Table 1 1 to 9, 11, and 14.
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the two cases “.. Nov. 19, 2004” were used as “ November 19, 2014.” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of revocation of imposition of automobile tax as stated in attached Tables 1 through 9, 11, and 14 is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against this is dismissed.