Where the owner on the register of automobiles has been in a state that he cannot use the automobile due to the disuse or theft of the automobile, the validity of the automobile tax and the license tax imposition disposition for it.

In full view of the purport of the provisions of Articles 161(1), 196-3, 196-6(1) and (2), 196-8(1) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 124(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, automobile tax or license tax shall be imposed on the owner of the automobile, and the ownership of the automobile shall be determined on the basis of the registration name on the first automobile register, and even if the actual owner and the registration titleholder are different, it shall be imposed on the registration titleholder unless there are special circumstances, or even if the actual owner and the registration titleholder are not able to use the automobile due to the disuse or theft of the automobile, the automobile tax or license tax shall not be imposed on the person who has no tax liability and the degree of the defect is significant and obvious.

Articles 161, 196-3, 196-6, and 196-8 of the Local Tax Act, Article 124 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

United States of America

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The defendant confirmed that the imposition of each automobile tax on the plaintiff from February of 1986 to February of 1989 and each license tax from 1987 to 1989 is invalid on the date of separate imposition.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The fact that the Defendant imposed (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition" of this case on the Plaintiff each of the automobile tax and its defense tax (the automobile tax amounting to 93,600 won per quarter, the defense tax amounting to 28,080 won, the total amount of 1,581,840 won during the whole period), and the respective license tax (the total amount of 21,600 won during each quarter, the total amount of 1,581,840 won) from 1987 to 1989 against the Plaintiff registered in the name of the Plaintiff as of July 7, 1984 in the automobile register (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case"). There is no dispute between the parties concerned.

2. On December 20, 1985, the Plaintiff: (a) was stolen on or around June 20, 1985; (b) was scrapped on or around July 25, 198; and (c) was scrapped on or around July 25, 198, and thus, the Defendant did not own the instant vehicle during the pertinent taxable period; and (b) was aware of such circumstances; (c) thus, the instant disposition is a disposition of imposition against a person without tax liability, and the Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was lawful, insofar as the Plaintiff did not have the ownership registration under the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant automobile, the instant disposition is

According to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 161(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who has obtained various licenses shall pay the license tax every year for each type of license; Article 124(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person who owns an automobile in the Si/Gun shall be liable to pay the automobile tax; Article 196-3 of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who owns an automobile in the Si/Gun shall be liable to pay the automobile tax; and Article 196-6(1) provides that an automobile tax shall be collected per unit by dividing the annual tax amount into 1/4; and Article 196-6(2) provides that the vehicle tax shall be issued by the Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the location of the automobile from the owner of the automobile as of the date the payment period commences within five days before the payment period commences; Article 196-8(1) provides that a person who discontinues the use of an automobile within the said period shall be subject to the imposition of the automobile tax under the name of the owner of the automobile or the remaining owner of the automobile tax.

In this case, if Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), Gap evidence Nos. 7 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), Gap evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 12 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), Eul evidence Nos. 4 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), and Gap evidence Nos. 13 (Certification of Cancellation) which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the purport of the whole pleadings, without dispute over its establishment, added the whole purport of the pleading Nos. 6 (Application for Cancellation of Registration), Gap evidence Nos. 7 (Report Nos. 11), Eul evidence Nos. 12 (Report Nos. 12), and other documents were presented to the defendant for cancellation of registration, but it was rejected for each of the above facts that the plaintiff did not request the defendant to waive the registration of the automobile under the name of the person in charge, but it was rejected for the reason that the plaintiff did not own the automobile again during the period of cancellation of registration.

According to the above facts, since it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff owned the automobile of this case during each of the above taxation periods, it was not obligated to pay automobile tax or license tax on the automobile of this case to the plaintiff, and such fact was easily confirmed by the defendant. Thus, the disposition of this case is a taxation by the non-tax payer, and it is deemed that the disposition of this case is a disposition of invalidation because the degree of defect is significant and obvious

3. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity on the ground that the disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)