Kim Jong-soo

Gwangju City Southern District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 2, 201

on March 30, 1972

The imposition of the automobile tax for the fourth period of 1970 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on August 23, 1971 by each 7,600 won in respect of heading 1-94, 1-107, 1-109, 1-109, 1-119, 1-121, and 1-18, 1971.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

First of all, as there is no dispute over the public part of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 which is presumed to have been established, if all the testimony of a witness is given to the non-party Kim Jong-ho, the automobile tax for the fourth period of 1970 was imposed on the non-party Kim Jong-ho, which was paid in full by that person, but as a result of the public sale due to the default of national tax, the plaintiff was transferred to the plaintiff on December 3, 1970. However, according to the instruction of the authority in the operational summary, the plaintiff applied for the registration of cancellation on the ground that it falls under the case where the owner of the motor vehicle as prescribed in Article 14 (4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act is unable to operate on the same day, and the fact that the plaintiff completed new registration on December 8 of the same year after the completion of new inspection, but the defendant imposed the automobile tax for the year as stated again in the order against the plaintiff in this case.

However, according to Article 14 (1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, when a registered automobile is destroyed or dismantled, or when a registered automobile is abolished, its owner is obliged to make an application for the registration of cancellation at the time of new registration. According to Article 14 (4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, the owner of a registered automobile may make an application for the registration of cancellation at will if he ceases to operate the automobile. Meanwhile, Article 131 of the Local Tax Act provides that the person who discontinues the use of the automobile shall pay the automobile tax for the period to which the day he discontinues the use belongs, and Article 130 of the Local Tax Act provides that the person who temporarily acquired the automobile shall pay the automobile tax for the period to which the day he discontinues the use of the automobile belongs. As seen above, this case's automobile is transferred to the plaintiff by the public sale and is transferred from the previous owner, but it constitutes a case where the owner fails to operate the vehicle under Article 14 (4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act according to the authority's order, and it cannot be seen as a cause for new registration or a change in the local tax.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the taxation disposition in this case is legitimate based on Article 131, Article 130, of the Local Tax Act is merely an opinion and cannot be accepted.

If so, the disposition of this case imposed again on the motor vehicle of this case which was already imposed again in the second half shall be considered to be an obvious illegal disposition, and the plaintiff's claim of this lawsuit shall be deemed to be justifiable, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the losing party as per the disposition of this case.

April 13, 1972

Judges Choi Yong-so (Presiding Judge)