1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On March 26, 2008, the Plaintiff in Grade VI was exempted from the reduction or exemption pursuant to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Reduction or Exemption of Acquisition Tax and Registration Tax by filing an application for reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the joint registration of the C Passenger Car under the name of ASEAN B.

B. On April 8, 2009, the Plaintiff, within three years after the acquisition of a motor vehicle, divided the households into Gwangju Northern-gu D, Gwangju, and the Defendant imposed acquisition tax, registration tax, and automobile tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff as listed below, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,575,460 by March 25, 2015.

The facts of including the amount of principal tax imposed on the date of imposition of the principal tax (including additional taxes, and the amount of principal tax) by March 25, 2015, including the amount of additional charges by August 5, 2009; 638,040 registration tax on August 31, 2009; 638,040 registration tax on August 5, 2009; 912, 260 on August 31, 2009; 480,820 automobile tax on August 31, 2009; 820, 119,540 on July 13, 209; 456,600 on July 31, 209; 14, 259, 7400 on January 28, 2010; 300 or 41,50 or 74,005 square meters on the aggregate;

2. The instant disposition imposing reduced or exempted acquisition tax, registration tax, and automobile tax on the Plaintiff, a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, is unlawful.

3. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. According to Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act on the part of the principal tax, including additional tax, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the disposition, etc. is known, and no lawsuit shall be filed after one year from the date of the disposition, etc., and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after March 8, 2016 after the lapse of one year from the date when the principal tax was imposed. As such, the principal tax, including additional tax, in the instant lawsuit, is unlawful as it is filed after the lapse of the filing period

(b) The main sentence of Article 59 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes shall be from the date on which the payment deadline expires if the local tax is not fully paid by the payment deadline.