Payment period under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act in the local tax by reporting method;

The deadline for payment that leads to the friendly relationship between the local tax claim and mortgage under Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) refers to the statutory deadline for payment under the tax law for the local tax in the same method of tax return and acquisition tax.

Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff Kim Yong-han, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Changwon-si, Attorney Kim Young-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Decision 93Na1934 delivered on August 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The payment period for local tax claims and mortgages under Article 31 (2) 3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) refers to the statutory due date for tax payment under the tax law with respect to the local tax of the same tax return method as the acquisition tax in this case and the tax return method (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu201 delivered on Sept. 25, 1984).

In the above purport, the court below was just in holding that the payment period of the acquisition tax of this case was 30 days from the date of acquisition of the object of taxation of the acquisition tax of this case, and that the establishment date of the right to collateral security of this case was legitimate and recognized as September 24 of the same year, and then the plaintiff's claim against the non-party secured by the right to collateral security cannot be superior to the acquisition tax of this case which became due earlier than the payment period of the right to collateral security, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)