logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.02 2014구합7412
자동차세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 6, 2001 to March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was registered as the owner of a bgner car (hereinafter “instant automobile”).

B. On June 7, 2013, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 9,90 of the first term automobile tax for the year 2013; KRW 29,970 of the local education tax; KRW 29,900 of the second term automobile tax for the year 2013; KRW 29,970 of the local education tax for the year 2013; and KRW 29,970 of the local education tax for the occasional amount on April 8, 2014 (the taxable period: between January 1, 2014 and March 24, 2014); and KRW 45,810 of the automobile tax for the year 2014; and KRW 13,740 of the local education tax for the local education tax, respectively.

(2) Each disposition of imposition of the above automobile tax and local education tax (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that no dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. On December 9, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) borrowed KRW 3 million from Mamasta Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Nonparty Company”); (b) set up a collateral with respect to the instant motor vehicle as a creditor to the Nonparty Company; and (c) handed over the said motor vehicle to the Nonparty Company; (d) the Nonparty Company sold the instant motor vehicle to C without the Plaintiff’s consent; and (e) transferred its possession to C without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with this Court No. 2012Gadan97723 against this Court, and received a judgment on February 6, 2014 that “C shall take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on March 9, 2003,” and completed the transfer of ownership registration under the name of C on March 25, 2014.

Therefore, after December 9, 2002, the Plaintiff lost its substantial ownership due to the Plaintiff’s failure to occupy and use the said automobiles, which provided the instant automobiles as security to the Nonparty Company.

Although the defendant is required to do so, he shall be the defendant.

arrow