1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2017, after passing the bar examination, the Plaintiff registered with the Association as a lawyer and reported its opening. On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as a patent attorney.

Patent attorney-at-law (Law Firm 27,000 won on January 17, 2018, 201, the amount of which is subject to taxation, as of December 26, 2017, as well as the amount of KRW 27,000 on January 17, 2018, as well as KRW 27,000 on December 27, 2017, as of December 27, 2017;

B. The Defendant imposed registration and license tax on the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiff paid each registration and license tax on the disposition of December 26, 2017 and January 17, 2018 among the dispositions in the instant case, but each registration and license tax on the disposition of January 11, 2019 was not paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 23 subparag. 2 of the Local Tax Act provides that a license subject to the license tax shall be “establishment of a right to business facilities or activities” and Article 39 and [Attachment Table] subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that a license subject to the license tax shall be “establishment of a right to business facilities or activities” and Article 39 and [Attachment Table] subparag. 114 of the Enforcement Decree

hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case"

However, the registration of the opening of the Association B and the registration of patent attorney qualification is merely a simple registration of qualification, and cannot be seen as “establishment of rights to business facilities or actions” as provided by Article 23 Subparag. 2 of the Local Tax Act.

Nevertheless, the Enforcement Decree of this case, which sets the entire registration of the opening of a legal office as the subject of license tax under the Local Tax Act, goes beyond the delegation scope of the Local Tax Act, which is a superior law.

In addition, the enforcement decree of this case is employed by doctors and pharmacists, who are subject to license tax only when they establish hospitals and pharmacies, and pharmacists, even though no license tax is imposed.