1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. As to the defense prior to the merits, the Defendant asserts that since the duty to collect acquisition tax was delegated to the head of a Si/Gun under the former Framework Act on Local Taxes (amended by Act No. 11616, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same), if the Defendant seeks confirmation of the absence of a tax obligation under the premise that the act of declaration is void as a matter of course, the Si/Gun shall be the Defendant. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed as it was filed with the Defendant with the Jeonnam-do, who is not qualified as

Pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the State, public organizations and other rights parties to the legal relationship are eligible for the defendant.

On the other hand, when comprehensively considering Articles 8(2)1 and 67 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the fact that a Si receives acquisition tax from a Do tax and pays it to a Do is merely handling Do affairs and thus, even if the market price is paid by the Do, the subject to whom acquisition tax reverts shall be considered as the Do.

Therefore, the city is only a local government dealing with the collection of acquisition tax, but it is not a subject to the ownership of acquisition tax, and there is no qualification for the defendant in the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of tax liability.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du2765, Sept. 8, 2000). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s conjunctive assertion, the Defendant’s filing of acquisition tax on the instant machinery is automatically null and void.