2016Nu3080 Such revocation of disposition as acquisition tax, etc.

A social service Korea Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap68041 decided November 27, 2015

July 19, 2016

September 13, 2016

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant who ordered cancellation of imposition of acquisition tax, among the imposition dispositions listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiff on September 10, 2012, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by each party, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of each acquisition tax (including additional tax for failure to report and pay) on September 10, 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Reasons for the disposition, the plaintiff's assertion, and the reasons why the court should explain this part of the related Acts and subordinate statutes are set forth in Table 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3

A person shall be appointed.

내용을 | 3 | 2005.3.31. |부산 친구 전포2동 632 | 2012,11.15. | 부산 해운대구 해운대해변로265번길 5(우동, ㈜동성모터스 비엠더블유빌딩 |"으로, 제3면 제1행 "2011. 9. 30.부터 2012. 6. 8.까지"를 "2011. 1. 3.부터 2012. 6. 1. 까지"로, 제4면 각주 5번의 내용을 "피고는 실질적인 취득일이 2010. 12. 31. 이전으로서 취득세 과세대상에서 제외되어야 하는 차량에 대하여만 취득세 부과처분을 취소하고, 이 사건 처분은 취소하지 않았다"로, 제4면 각주 6번의 내용을 "위 법원은 2015. 11. 17. 원고의 청구를 기각하는 판결을 선고하였고, 위 사건은 현재 대법원(2016두 40139)에 계속 중이다"로 각 고치고, 관계법령에 아래와 같은 내용을 추가하는 외에는 제1심 판결의 해당 부분 이유 기재와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 인용한다.

Article 128 (Methods of Payment and Collection) following the first instance judgment of the first instance court shall collect the amount of automobile tax calculated by dividing the annual amount of automobile tax per unit into 1/2 (in cases of non-business passenger automobiles, the amount of tax for each term portion calculated pursuant to Article 127 (1) 2) by the local government having jurisdiction over the location of the automobile owner as of the 1st day of the month in which the payment period falls within the following periods: Provided, That where a person liable to pay tax applies for the payment in quarterly installments of an amount equivalent to 1/4 of the annual amount of tax (in cases of non-business passenger automobiles, the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the annual amount of tax for each term portion) from March 16 to March 31, and 1/2 of the amount of tax for the second term portion from September 16 to September 30, respectively. In such cases, the amount of tax to be collected by the local government in installments within the payment period shall be the amount obtained by deducting the amount of tax already collected in installments:

D Article 125 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24296, Jan. 1, 2013);

(1) The location of a motor vehicle under the main sentence of Article 128 (1) of the Act shall be the place of use on the original register of the relevant motor vehicle or construction machinery: Provided, That where the place of use on the original register is unclear, the owner's domicile shall

○ Part 5 of the first instance judgment No. 28 (Requirements for Registration)

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes, no registration shall be made without an application or entrustment of a public office.

2. Where details of an application for registration are not matters to be registered in the register (hereinafter referred to as "matters to be registered") pursuant to Article 8 (2), the registration authority shall not accept the application, if the application for registration falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

○ Article 33 (Registration Cancellation of Violation of Jurisdiction, etc.) No. 8 of the first instance judgment

(1) Where a registration authority finds that the registration falls under any subparagraph of Article 17 after the completion of the registration, it shall notify the obligee of registration, obligor for registration, titleholder of registration, and third parties who have an interest in the registration of the purport that the registration is cancelled if he/she fails to file an objection within a fixed period not exceeding one month: Provided, That if the address or domicile of the person to be notified is unclear, the public announcement shall be made at least once.

(2) Where the registration authority fails to submit an objection within the period designated under paragraph (1) or where the submitted objection cannot be deemed to be justifiable, the registration authority shall cancel the registration.

Article 43 (Revised Registration)

(1) Where a registration authority finds any error or omission in registration, and if such error or omission is caused by the error of the relevant registration authority, it shall make a registration of correction additionally, and notify the obligee of registration, obligor for registration, holder of registration, holder of registration, or any third party having a interest in the registration of such fact.

(2) Where a registration authority finds any error or omission in registration, and such error or omission is not caused by the error of the registration authority, it shall notify the person holding the right to registration, the person liable for registration or the person holding the title of registration of the purport thereof, respectively.

(4) Where a registration authority receives an application for registration of correction due to an error or omission in registration, it shall make the registration of correction additionally only in any of the following cases:

1. Where no third party has an interest in registration;

2. Where a written consent from a third party having interests in registration or a certified copy of the judgment which can oppose such third party is submitted to the application;

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the procedure is unlawful

Article 12 of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that the Minister of the Interior and Safety shall determine within 60 days from the date he/she receives the request and notify the head of the relevant local government of the determination without delay. Whether the head of the relevant local government who received the notification of the determination bears the legal obligation to implement the decision, whether the respondent is a means to enforce the decision if the decision is not faithfully implemented, and whether the decision is a means to enforce the decision.

There is no provision on whether the head of a local government is dissatisfied with a separate method, and there is no provision on procedural guarantee such as that the resolution of the Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee or the Local Government Dispute Mediation Committee (Article 148(3) of the Local Autonomy Act) under the Local Autonomy Act is followed in the process of the determination thereof. Therefore, the decision to impose taxes by the Minister of Public Administration and Security under the above provision is merely a normization of administrative involvement or public opinion expression of the decision of the Minister of Public Administration and Security when there is a difference in the opinions of the head of the relevant local government on whether or not the right to impose taxes belongs to the local government, and it is difficult to deem that the decision is legally binding (see Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ma4, Mar. 27, 2014

In light of the above legal principles, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the defendant did not request the Minister of Public Administration and Security to decide the attribution of the right to impose taxes prior to the disposition of this case. Thus,

B. Determination of whether the right to impose tax exists

1) According to Article 8(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act where the place of payment of acquisition tax on a vehicle is to be the place of payment, “the place of payment of acquisition tax on a vehicle is different from the place of registration under the Automobile Management Act” or “place of use.” According to Article 5(1) and the main sentence of Article 5(2) of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) delegated by the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 24443, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter the same), the office of registration (hereinafter referred to as “registered agent”) is, in principle, under the jurisdiction of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do governor, Special Self-Governing Province Governor, and its delegated person (hereinafter referred to as “registration authority”), but another registration authority that does not have jurisdiction over the place of use of the relevant vehicle may also handle the registration affairs.

In full view of the provisions of the above statutes, since the place of registration is identical to the place of registration and place of use of a vehicle, the place of registration shall be the place of payment of acquisition tax, but only if the place of registration coincides with the place of use, the place of payment of acquisition tax shall be the place of use of the vehicle. In conclusion, the place of payment of acquisition tax on a vehicle is the place of payment of acquisition tax

2) The meaning of "place of tax payment", which is the place of tax payment for automobile acquisition tax;

Although the former Local Tax Act does not have a separate definition on the concept of "place of use", the main office of the corporation or the place of use under the Automobile Management Act is the place of payment under Article 8 (1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act, and in the proviso, "place of use" under the former Automobile Management Act or the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes delegated by it is the place of payment, which is the place of payment of acquisition tax, and in full view of the following circumstances, "place of use" is the place where the owner of the vehicle, who is the object of acquisition tax, actually is expected to keep, manage, or use the vehicle, and where the main office of the corporation or the main office of the vehicle or the facilities of the corporation are to be stored, managed, or used to the extent that it is possible to keep, manage, or use the vehicle, and where the "place of use" registered in the original register is different from the place of payment, the place of actual use or the place of storage, management of the vehicle is the place where the corporation actually uses the vehicle as the main office or the facilities in question.

A) Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles provides that "the place of residence" means a place where an owner of a motor vehicle mainly stores, manages, or uses a motor vehicle and is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Article 3 (1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a certain place prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles means the place where the owner of the motor vehicle is a private individual, and where the owner of the motor vehicle is an association or foundation other than a juristic person or a juristic person (hereinafter referred to as "juristic person, etc."), and Article 3 (2) of the Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles provides that the owner of the motor vehicle must submit documents proving the reason to the registration authority under Article 5 of the Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles."

B) Article 2 (2) of the former Automobile Registration Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14447 of Dec. 23, 1994) which first introduced a definition provision to the automobile registration Decree, provides that the main place of use of a vehicle as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation shall be the place of use of the vehicle under the said Ordinance, and where a variety of notices on automobile management can be delivered, the said provision was amended on Dec. 23, 1994, but the part of the traffic Ordinance was changed to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the remaining contents were the same. Article 3 (1) of the former Automobile Registration Rule (amended by the Ordinance No. 88 of Jan. 15, 1997), which is a subordinate law delegated by the said provision, provides that the main place of use of the automobile falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be the place falling under one of the following subparagraphs:

Article 2 (2) 2 of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19157 of Nov. 30, 2005) provides that the owner of a motor vehicle mainly stores, manages, or uses the motor vehicle, and the part of the "Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" of the former Ordinance on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 4 of Mar. 14, 2008) is amended into the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and the remaining contents are the same. Article 3 (1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 4 of Mar. 14, 2008) provides that "a certain place prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" in Article 2 (2) 2 of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19157 of Nov. 30, 2005) provides that "the following part is a corporation or foundation.

According to the above amendment process of the Automobile Registration Decree and the Automobile Registration Rules, the term "the main use place of the automobile" under the Automobile Registration Decree has been a requirement of "the main use of the automobile or "the main use of the automobile," and the term "the specific address where various notices can be delivered regarding the automobile management" has been deleted, and the term has been embodied from "the main use" to "the storage, management, or use of the automobile as the main owner". However, it seems that the legislators added the requirements of "the main use" or "the main use" in consideration of the fact that it is difficult to determine as one place where the automobile is actually used, stored, managed, or used as one, because it is a very strong movable property. (C) According to Article 3 (2) of the former Automobile Registration Rules, if the owner of the automobile intends to be recognized as the place of a vehicle other than the main office of the corporation, the reason must be submitted to the registration authority. The term "the reason here means that the vehicle is mainly managed, managed, or used in a place other than the main office of the corporation."

Meanwhile, according to Article 27 of the former Rules on Registration of Motor Vehicles, if an owner of a motor vehicle applies for new registration of a motor vehicle for non-business, a business registration certificate or a certified copy of corporate register shall be submitted to the registration authority with information that can confirm the place of use of the motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "information about confirmation of the place of use of the motor vehicle"). In full view of Article 5(1) through (4) and (8) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013); Article 7(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013); Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance), and Article 73 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, it is reasonable to secure an employee's personal information, date of business registration or material form.

D) According to Article 7(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act, an owner of a vehicle (which shall be registered pursuant to Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act) shall be deemed to have acquired a vehicle even if it is not registered pursuant to the Automobile Management Act, and the acquisition tax shall be imposed on a person who has acquired the vehicle. According to Article 20(4) of the former Local Tax Act, where a person intends to register the acquisition of property rights in the public register, acquisition tax shall be paid before the registration of the vehicle. Thus, the obligation to pay acquisition tax shall be established when a vehicle is actually acquired regardless of the registration of the vehicle before the registration of the vehicle (the procedure for registration and payment of acquisition tax shall also be the document preparation - the document review - the issuance and payment of the acquisition tax notice - the right to purchase the vehicle - the issue of new registration related to new registration - the submission and registration of the vehicle - the submission of new registration related documents - the vehicle before the registration of the vehicle, and it is not the subject of registration authority to register the vehicle before the registration of the vehicle.

E) In order to protect taxpayers and avoid confusion related to the determination of the place of tax payment, it is necessary to uniformly determine the place of tax payment according to objective standards. However, if the place of tax payment is deemed to require the substantial element of the “place where the vehicle is mainly stored, managed, or used” as a requirement, there is a reply that the place of tax payment will cause confusion in the tax administration surrounding the determination of the place of tax payment by determining the place of tax payment according to individual fact-finding as to whether it falls under the above indefinite concept.

① Since economic phenomena subject to the regulation of tax-related Acts are different from thousandscopic and continuous changes, it is practically impossible to ensure that all kinds of vehicles can not be expected in legislative technology and that general, abstract, or general provisions enter the tax-related Acts. Thus, if the meaning of what is prescribed by law can be objectively recognized and the legal stability and predictability are not considerably undermined, it should be permitted to use the general abstract or general provisions. ② The former Automobile Registration Rule, which is delegated by the former Automobile Registration Rule, mainly, provides for the place of storage, management, or use of an automobile as its principal place of business if the owner is an individual, and it is difficult to determine that the vehicle is not a “place of storage, management, or use of an automobile” because it is not a “place of business or a branch of a corporation, other than the principal place of business of a corporation, or a place of business of a corporation, which is not a “place of business or a place of business,” but a “place of business, other than a place of business or a place of business, which mainly requires the taxpayer to use the vehicle.

F) According to the main text of Article 5(1) and (2) of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles, in principle, the registration office has jurisdiction over the place of use of the relevant motor vehicle, but another registration office that does not have jurisdiction over the place of use of the relevant motor vehicle may handle the registration affairs.

In addition, according to Article 9 subparagraph 1 of the former Automobile Management Act and Article 13 (3) subparagraph 4 of the former Automobile Management Act, the registration authority shall refuse to make a new registration if there is any false application for registration, and if the registration is made by deceit or other unjust means, the registration authority may cancel the registration ex officio, and according to Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the former Automobile Registration Decree, the registration authority shall not accept the application if the contents of the application for registration are not to be entered in the registration ledger. Meanwhile, according to Article 11 (1) of the former Automobile Registration Decree, the registration is not made without the application or the entrustment by the government office, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes. According to Articles 33 and 43 of the former Automobile Registration Decree, the registration authority may cancel or make a registration if it discovers that the registration authority is not a legitimate place of use.

However, in a case where the place of use of the “automobile register” appears to be a place of business or a branch of a processing, the registration authority, which does not have jurisdiction over the actual place of use, does not reject an application for registration to a place of business or a branch of a processing within the area under the jurisdiction of the registration authority, for which the owner of a vehicle can increase the number of taxes, such as acquisition tax or automobile tax, while handling the registration affairs, and to which the owner of a vehicle can use the place of business or a branch of the processing within the area under the jurisdiction of the registration authority. Although it is apparent that the actual lease company is a place of business or a branch of processing with the address of the registration authority, the registration authority does not refuse a new registration, rather than refusing a new registration, rather than providing the lessee with convenience to a place of business or a branch of the processing within the jurisdiction of the defendant, or encouraging the lessee to apply for registration to use the vehicle to place of business or a branch of the processing in its own jurisdiction (this Court case 2016-50763).

As such, the closing of the taxation administration can be resolved by deeming that the place of use is "place where a vehicle is mainly stored, managed, or used in accordance with the language and text of the Motor Vehicle Management Act" to be "place where a vehicle is mainly stored, managed, or used" and, in such cases, the "place where a vehicle is actually stored, managed, or used, such as the location of the principal office of a corporation, etc." is a place of use, and therefore, it does not cause confusion in the taxation administration or damage to the taxpayer, and demanding the taxpayer to have the substance of a place of business or a branch is merely demanding business by a legitimate means, and it does not mean that the taxpayer

G) Article 8(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act merely provides that the place for tax payment of acquisition tax shall be “the place of tax payment of a vehicle” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24296, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 125(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24296, Jan. 1, 2013) (the location of a vehicle under the main sentence of Article 128(1) of the Act shall be “the place of tax payment of the relevant vehicle or construction machinery”; Article 109(1) main sentence of the Civil Execution Rule (the enforcement court of a vehicle shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment recorded in the automobile register) and Article 110 (Application for Compulsory Auction for a Motor Vehicle shall be attached with a certified copy of the vehicle register in addition to the executory original copy). If it is not clearly defined that a "use of a motor vehicle" registered in the original register shall be the place for tax payment of the acquisition tax, but shall be defined as a new.

3) The meaning of "use and permanent domicile of the leased vehicle"

Article 2(2) of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles provides that a person who mainly stores, manages, or uses a motor vehicle shall be the owner of a motor vehicle. In the case of a leased motor vehicle, a lessor under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act does not provide for a special provision on the basis of a lessee, and according to Article 7(9) of the former Local Tax Act, the motor vehicle is deemed to have been acquired by the lessor even if the lessor is registered in the name of the lessee when the lessee leases the motor vehicle.

Where a vehicle leasing business operator leases a vehicle to a lessee, the lessee stores, manages, or uses the leased vehicle; however, the vehicle leasing business operator also manages the leased vehicle by conducting business affairs, such as inspection as to whether the lessee complies with the lease agreement with respect to the storage, use, etc. of the leased vehicle, and in cases where a third party is damaged due to the operation of the leased vehicle, compensation for the damage to the victim (the final cost shall be borne by the lessee in accordance with the automobile leasing agreement) as the owner of the leased vehicle, receipt and payment of notice of tax and public charges, such as automobile tax (the final cost shall be borne by the lessee, such as compensation for damage), collection of the vehicle in the event of the unpaid rental fee, and acquisition of the vehicle after the termination of the lease.

Therefore, “the place of tax payment for the instant leased vehicle” should be deemed to be the place where the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant leased vehicle, intended to manage or manage the instant leased vehicle as above at the time of the acquisition of the instant leased vehicle, and the location of the principal office of the relevant corporation or “the place equipped with human and material facilities to the extent that it is possible to manage the instant leased vehicle at the time of the acquisition of the instant leased vehicle.”

4) Relationship between the imposition of each of the instant dispositions and the registration of the instant leased vehicle

As seen earlier, the place of use, which is the place of payment of the acquisition tax, is expected to be a place where a vehicle is actually stored, managed, or used at the time when the vehicle is actually acquired, and refers to the place where the principal office of the relevant corporation or the place where the vehicle is equipped with human and material facilities to the extent that it is possible to store, manage, or use the vehicle. Thus, the place of payment of the acquisition tax and the place of use on the register of vehicles are irrelevant to the effect of registration. Therefore, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Do governor, etc., without denying the validity of the place of use registered in the register of vehicles, may impose acquisition tax on the place of use with the actual mark that mainly stores, manages, or uses the vehicle, which is the object of taxation, with the mark that actually stores, manages, or uses the vehicle. Accordingly, the place of use of the instant leased vehicle, without considering whether the defect of the registration of the relevant leased vehicle is obvious and invalid, should be determined by the person who has the authority to impose the tax and authority to impose the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle.

5) In the instant case:

In light of the following circumstances, Gap 2, Eul 11, Eul 1, Eul 1, Eul 3, Eul 1, Eul 1 through 10, Eul 12's each entry or the whole purport of pleadings, and Eul 12's each entry or the whole purport of pleadings, and the plaintiff paid not only the value-added tax but also the local income tax after the plaintiff's registration as a branch in the corporate register and completed the business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act. The defendant's tax office having jurisdiction over each of the instant branch offices did not cancel the business registration, and there is no difference in the amount of acquisition tax itself, each of the instant branch offices is not "the place of tax payment, which is the place of tax payment for acquisition tax," and it is not "the place of tax payment, which is the place of tax payment for processing without human and material facilities to the extent that it is possible to manage the leased vehicles of this case." Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above right to impose acquisition tax is reasonable to the defendant.

A) The Defendant conducted a field investigation at the location of the Plaintiff’s original branch, and confirmed that the said location is used as an agency of same-sexs. At the time, A, who was an employee of same-sexs, stated that “A, at the time, is an agent of a vehicle, does not have any relation with the Plaintiff, and does not have any branch, and all the Plaintiff’s affairs are handled at the Seoul head office.”

On July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a lease agreement and an agreement on entrustment of affairs between the same-sex mother and the above original branch from October 13, 2006 to 24 months. The above lease agreement is an administrative district where the address of the original branch was not located at the time, and entered in the contract year 201, and the contract year was entered in 201, and the Plaintiff stated in the copy of the driver's license attached to the agreement on entrustment of affairs between B and November 15, 2007 to November 14, 2008, and it is difficult to believe that the above documents were not existing during the lease period, and that the documents were prepared after the completion of the contract, and that the documents were prepared after the completion of the contract, and that the documents were prepared, and that there was no clear reason to believe that the documents were prepared, and that there was no reason to believe that the plaintiff's work was conducted retroactively.

Since the result of the investigation on the original original point of the Plaintiff, which was conducted by the Changwon-si, was only the result of an interview with A, etc. which was difficult to believe that the statement was made in 2014 after the Defendant’s on-site investigation, it is difficult to recognize that the original point of the Plaintiff was the

B) On March 27, 2012, the Defendant conducted a field investigation at the location of the Plaintiff’s Busan Branch, and confirmed that the above location was used as the same-sex Busan Branch for repair of vehicles and that it was a separate legal entity that has no relations with the Plaintiff, and that there was no other Plaintiff’s place of business. The real estate lease agreement submitted to the Defendant on July 9, 2012, which was submitted by the Plaintiff on March 9, 2012, entered the lessor’s trade name as “FE” and entered D as “E” (the same written evidence No. 15-4, which was submitted by the Plaintiff in this case), but the trade name of the same-sex mother as of March 31, 2005 was “Co., Ltd.,” and “F” was “F”, and the content of the above lease agreement was not inconsistent with the current status of the same-sex mother at the time of its preparation.

On May 15, 2012, G stated that there was no office of the Plaintiff at the above location on May 15, 2012. G stated that the Plaintiff’s Busan Branch on February 28, 2013 transferred the Plaintiff’s 265-ro 5-ro 265 to Busan Shipping Daegu Shipping Daegu, and that B was in office. Since then, the Defendant’s employee submitted a written confirmation that “YYY-dong 2 was a separate corporation that is not related to the Plaintiff as the Busan Branch’s agent, and that there was no statement to the effect that there was no branch.” However, it is difficult to believe that G submitted the written contract that the Plaintiff would have been falsely prepared.

B, on April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that he was employed as a contractual employee of the Plaintiff while holding an interview with the Defendant’s employees at the place where the Plaintiff transferred. However, the Plaintiff’s refusal to submit documents, such as a written contract, cannot be trusted in light of the credibility of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff in connection with the Plaintiff’s Busan Branch.

C) On May 14, 2012, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff’s place of work, and confirmed that the said place is being used as the exhibition place of the Bobane. He stated that He was “I do not have the Plaintiff’s place of business and employees.” The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff’s place of business and employees even at the time of the investigation on February 28, 2013.

H prepared a written confirmation that there was no statement such as the above, but it is difficult to believe in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and H or Pababacy and the time when written a written confirmation, etc.

The result of the investigation on the plaintiff's daily place of origin of the Goyang-si was conducted in 2014, which was after the defendant's field investigation. However, there is no specific content about the plaintiff's business related to the management of the leased vehicle at the above point (it is only understood that the Bauri-si is directly supplying the vehicle to the customer in light of various circumstances). It is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's daily place of origin is not a point of processing but a point of substance

D) On May 15, 2012, the Defendant stated that, at the time of an on-site investigation into the location of the Plaintiff’s Incheon Branch, there was no resident employee of the Plaintiff and no office space for the Plaintiff, but refused to affix the written statement. However, the Defendant confirmed that, “I and J did not state that there was no resident employee of the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s Incheon Branch located in the Nam-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon, Incheon, and that there was no office space for the Plaintiff.” However, it is difficult to believe in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff, I, J, and Pauri, and the date of preparation of written confirmation, etc.

E) The Plaintiff acquired the instant leased vehicle and dealt with the principal duties, such as payment of vehicle prices and approval for the use of lease, at the location of the Plaintiff’s principal office.

The plaintiff filed an application for vehicle registration to the defendant, and the Incheon Gyeyang-gu and the Hanam-gun operated the vehicle registration office in the defendant's jurisdiction. In light of this, lease companies including the plaintiff did not have any human and physical facilities capable of performing the registered affairs in the local government's jurisdiction where the branch is located, and most of the registered affairs are expected to have been handled in the principal office.

When the Plaintiff returns and pays local income tax in 2010 and 2011, even based on the current status of the Plaintiff’s principal office and the human and material resources of each of the instant branches, it seems that the leased vehicle, which belongs to only several times (one part of the leased vehicle 12,687) was managed at the Plaintiff’s principal office with human and material resources facilities, not at each of the instant branches, rather than at least in the same manner that there is little human and material resources facilities.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Determination on double taxation

The Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax to the local government having jurisdiction over each of the instant branches with the location of the instant leased vehicle as the place of use of the instant leased vehicle, and there is no means to report acquisition tax to the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax based on the erroneous place of tax payment, and accordingly, acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle, which the Plaintiff reported and paid erroneously, pursuant to Article 51(1)1 of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11616, Jan. 1, 2013).

The tax base and tax amount entered in the tax base return fall under the category of "where the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the Local Tax Act exceed the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the Local Tax Act, and the acquisition tax reported and paid by the Plaintiff to the head of each local government under the jurisdiction of each branch shall be refunded to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition cannot

D. Determination as to the assertion of mistake to place of use

As seen earlier, the location of the leased vehicle is the location of the principal office of the Plaintiff, which is the jurisdiction of the Defendant, unlike the entry in the register of automobiles. Therefore, even if the Defendant mispers the place of use of the vehicle registered in the register of automobiles, which is the original place of origin, into the vehicle registered in Busan place, the instant disposition is still legitimate on the ground that the place of use of the leased vehicle is the location of the Plaintiff’

E. Determination as to whether the principle of good faith has been violated

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax and legal relations, the tax authorities must issue a public opinion list that is the object of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the trust of the tax authorities. The taxpayer must act in trust in the name of the opinion list, and the tax authorities should make a disposition against the above opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29, 2009).

After the Plaintiff registered a processing branch and registered a business registration, insofar as the Plaintiff applied for the registration of the leased vehicle of this case to place the place of use with the certified copy of the corporate register or the business registration certificate attached with respect to the leased vehicle of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is not attributable to the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendant accepted the above application for registration by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that

F. Whether each of the dispositions of this case was lawful

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed when a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds. If there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of the tax law, etc. and it is unreasonable to deem that a taxpayer is not aware of such obligations, or if there is a circumstance to deem that a taxpayer is unable to expect a taxpayer to perform his/her obligations, it may not be imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005).

The fact that the Plaintiff paid the principal tax of the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle to the head of the local government having jurisdiction over each branch office is as seen earlier, and the local government head having jurisdiction over each branch office and the Defendant have different opinions on the place for tax payment of the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle. According to the evidence No. 4, on November 19, 2012, the Minister of Public Administration and Security also determined that the place for tax payment of the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle should be determined by the place for tax payment registered pursuant to the Automobile Management Act. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as the taxpayer, could have known that the place for tax payment of the instant vehicle was Seoul Special Metropolitan City or about KRW 56.8 billion, cannot be expected to be reported and paid to the Defendant again. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff cannot impose the penalty tax on the Plaintiff. (In imposing the principal tax and the additional tax together with a single tax payment notice, the tax amount and the calculation basis for each of the instant leased vehicle should be separately stated in the tax payment notice, but the Plaintiff’s procedural statement and payment basis for each of additional tax.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim concerning the imposition of additional tax among the claims of this case is justified, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered the cancellation of the imposition of principal tax in excess of the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part shall be revoked, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as

The presiding judge, the highest judge

Judges fixed-term machines

Judges Cho Yong-chul