Even if a person who is not in charge of the public auction due to the default of national taxes cancels the registration of the motor vehicle in question according to the instructions of the authorities and makes new registration, it does not change the cause of acquisition or in the taxable period, so it does not correspond to the disuse, as well as it does not constitute the original acquisition.

Even if a person who is not in charge of the public auction due to the default of national taxes cancels the registration of the motor vehicle in question according to the instructions of the authorities and makes new registration, it does not change the cause of acquisition or in the taxable period, so it does not correspond to the disuse, as well as it does not constitute the original acquisition.

Article 14(1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 14(4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 130 of the Local Tax Act, Article 131 of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

Gwangju Market (Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 71Gu33 delivered on April 13, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the disposition of imposition of automobile tax on the fourth period of 1970 imposed by the defendant on August 23, 1971 was unlawful, and the non-party who is the owner of the automobile of this case has already paid in full the fourth period of 1970 automobile tax, but the automobile of this case has already been disposed of by public auction due to the default of national tax against this person, and the plaintiff was registered before December 3, 1970. However, according to the instruction of the authority in light of the operation style, the disposition of this case constitutes the time of non-operation pursuant to Article 14 (4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and the same owner has cancelled and newly registered the registration on the automobile of this case, and there was no change in the grounds for its acquisition or the taxable period, and it does not constitute an unlawful act of Article 14 (1) of the Road Transport Act or Article 131 of the Local Tax Act, and it does not constitute an unlawful act of Article 137 of this Act.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed with the grounds for appeal being groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho