East Asia Construction Industry Corporation (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

February 24, 1983

Of the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 67,308,203 against the Plaintiff as of July 16, 1981, the part exceeding KRW 1,844,184 of acquisition tax shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 67,308,203 against the plaintiff on July 16, 1981 by the defendant shall be revoked. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On July 16, 1981, the fact that the Plaintiff acquired 15 ships and structures referred to in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 by the acquisition price referred to in paragraph (4) of the same list on the date of acquisition referred to in paragraph (3) of the same list, and that the Defendant imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on July 16, 1981, on the acquisition price of the ships and structures referred to in paragraph (4) of the same list as the tax base amount under paragraph (5) of the same list, the penalty tax under paragraph (6) of the same list is added to the calculated tax amount under paragraph (7) of the same list.

The plaintiff first, among the ships listed in attached Table 1 (1) of attached Table 1 that the defendant imposed on the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the ship's main ship") 11 kyke lines listed in attached Table 2 of attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the ship's main ship") that the plaintiff acquired for construction work at the construction site of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Earra, Earra, Abubababa, the construction site of the breakwater, and the construction site of the port of the neighboring country. The ship is still registered in Korea, registered, imported, carried in, or taken in, overseas works. It is a pure foreign product that does not fall under any of the provisions of Article 73 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and thus, it is illegal that the defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 65,464,019 on the defendant even though it did not meet the taxation requirements of acquisition tax.

Second, it is illegal to impose a non-taxable object pursuant to Article 107(5) of the Local Tax Act, because the Dok-si's ship was acquired solely for the plaintiff's overseas works, and it is a ship that only for the navigation of the middle-dong state coast.

Third, according to the provisions of Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act, the acquisition tax of a ship shall be imposed by the Do (or the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, and Metropolitan Cities) where the acquired property is located. This case is illegal to impose the acquisition tax of this case on the defendant, since the ship is not located in any Do, and is placed in the Kingdom of Saudidi, and there is no registration of the ship yet, and there is no port of shipment in the jurisdiction of the defendant in the Kingdom of Saudidi, and there is no port of shipment in the jurisdiction of the defendant in the Kingdom of Saudidi.

Fourth, this case's tetra line was already acquired by the plaintiff in the year 1977 and was placed on the Saudidi line, and the defendant is not subject to taxation under Article 107 (5) of the Local Tax Act, and the disposition of this case is in violation of the provisions of Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the prohibition of retroactive taxation is prohibited, and the defendant is not subject to taxation under Article 107 (5) of the Local Tax Act.

Fifth, the purpose of Article 25 of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to ensure the fairness of tax administration by having the taxpayer notify the taxable year to be paid or paid, the period of payment, and the amount (2) the basis for calculating the amount of tax, and the payment notice stating the place of payment or payment, and at the same time, to provide the taxpayer with a detailed information of the details of the tax disposition and to ensure the decision of whether to object and the convenience of appeal. However, since the defendant's notice of payment of acquisition tax on the plaintiff, the tax disposition was unlawful since it did not entirely state the basis for calculating the amount of tax.

Therefore, as to the defendant's taxation jurisdiction over the above third point's second point's second point's second point's second point's second point's ship, even if the defendant did not complete the registration or registration under the Ship Act, it is clear that the above part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the purport of testimony and oral argument of the witness, this ship's 10 tons or less is not the ship's construction work under the provision of this Act, but the ship's construction work under the provision of this Act or its construction work under the provision of this Act is not the ship's construction work under the provision of this Act, but the ship's construction work under the provision of this Act or its construction work under the provision of this Act's 10 tons or less is not the ship's construction work under the provision of this Act's 10 tons or less. Thus, according to the provision of this Act's 2nd vessel's construction work under the provision of this Act's 9th vessel's 1st vessel's 19th vessel's 1st vessel's 19th vessel's 2nd vessel's 2nd vessel's 5th vessel's 1st vessel's 19th vessel's 2nd vessel's 2nd vessel's 5th vessel's 1st vessel's own.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 67,308,203 against the plaintiff as of July 16, 1981, as of acquisition tax of KRW 65,464,019 against the f5,464,019 against the f7,308,200 shall be revoked as an illegal disposition imposed without the taxation authority. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed, and the burden of litigation costs shall be borne as per Disposition by applying Article 89,92 of the Civil Procedure Act as stipulated in Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

March 17, 1983

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)