New Young Fishery Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jong-bong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Busan Central Government (Attorney Han Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 1, 197

The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax on June 25, 1976, excluding the amount of tax 187,835 won for marinad ship, the amount of tax for 31 won for marinad ship, the amount of tax for 405,93 won for 180,000 won for 167,156 won for 16% of the amount of tax on ship’s marinad ship among the imposition disposition of occasional pro ratad ship listed in attached Table 1, which the Defendant issued against the Plaintiff on June 25

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

The defendant's imposition of acquisition tax on June 25, 1976 against the plaintiff shall be revoked on an occasional basis in attached Form 1, 1976.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Determination on this safety defense

In making a request for re-examination to the Minister of Home Affairs against a decision to dismiss a request for re-examination of the Busan City market, which is the pre-trial procedure of the administrative litigation of this case, the defendant appointed the Korea Ocean Fisheries Association as the representative, unless otherwise provided in the pre-trial procedure of administrative litigation, only an attorney-at-law shall be deemed to be an illegal act. Therefore, the above request for a review is illegal and illegal, and therefore the lawsuit of this case is asserted to be illegal without a legitimate request for a review. Therefore, in the request for a review under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act and other Acts, the above incorporated association is not entitled to be an agent for the request for a review as the plaintiff's representative, and it cannot be deemed to be illegal and void. Accordingly,

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim

In full view of each statement of evidence No. 1-5 (each tax payment notice) without dispute over the authenticity, the defendant concluded a charter party with the owner of the ship in Pakistan and five vessels which are objects of taxation listed in the annexed Table No. 1-2, and paid charterage each year pursuant to the proviso of Article 111(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 73(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the plaintiff shall be deemed as the acquisition of vessels in annual installments pursuant to the provisions of the proviso of Article 111(5) of the Local Tax Act and Article 73(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the acquisition tax equivalent to 20/100 of the hire paid by the plaintiff in 1973 and 1974, and there is no counter-proof evidence.

The plaintiff originally engaged in deep-sea fisheries under the trade name of Chang Chang Fishery Co., Ltd. and changed its trade name to new Young Fishery Co., Ltd. in 1975. The plaintiff concluded a charter party with the permission of the competent authorities and used it by charter party with respect to five of the above vessels with the nationality of Pakistan, and the above vessel will be expected to acquire the ownership of the plaintiff in the future. However, until the plaintiff completed the procedure for acquiring ownership due to the completion of the charter party price, the hires paid during the charter period is not owned by the plaintiff and paid the charter party with the usage fee and value of the charter party. Thus, the above charter party is not a case of acquiring charterage in annual installments, and it is not a case of acquiring the above vessel in annual installments, and the above charter party is not a case of acquiring the above vessel, and the defendant shall be deemed to have acquired the above vessel in annual installments and to have received the above charter party No. 1 to No. 4 of No. 1 to No. 5 of No. 1 to No. 7 of No. 5 of No.

If the facts are as above, charterage under the above charter party is de facto repaid in advance, including interest rates for the charter period, regardless of the form of the contract. The plaintiff paid charterage, the de facto prior to the charter period, and acquired the portion equivalent to the payment of charterage in annual installments on the date of the payment. In this case, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not acquire the import paper for the ship in annual installments, even if it did not receive the import paper for the ship in question.

However, according to the provisions of Article 108 subparagraph 2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2593, Apr. 1, 1973), the acquisition tax shall not be imposed on the acquisition by the construction or import of a ship to be placed only on a foreign air route. In light of the purport of entry and pleading of No. 10 (Evidence) without dispute in the establishment of the petition and the purport of Article 79-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the above ship acquired in annual installments by the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the above ship was a ship to be placed only on a foreign air route with permission under the provisions of Article 23 (Amendment of Article 23-2) of the former Local Tax Act and was a ship to be placed only on a foreign air route. Thus, since there is no counter-proof evidence, the above part of the charterage paid by the plaintiff constitutes a charterage paid before the enforcement of the above Local Tax Act, the acquisition tax and the remaining portion of the tax imposed on the ship's 187,835 won and 9165 won.7

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of seeking revocation of the disposition imposing acquisition tax as above, and the remainder is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

December 15, 1970

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)