Whether the acquisition tax imposition disposition for a barge towed by another ship without a navigational engine is appropriate;

A barge towed by another ship without a navigation-related engine or a navigation-fighting promotion engine is in itself incapable of resistance, and thus does not fall under a vessel or small-sized ship which shall be registered and registered regardless of its tonnage, and does not fall under a vessel which may determine a port of loading. Accordingly, the imposition of acquisition tax by determining the location of the relevant acquired article under Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act, which is the basis for taxation jurisdiction based on the port of loading, is unlawful.

Articles 6, 20, and 21(1) of the Ship Act (amended by Act No. 3641 of Dec. 31, 1982); Articles 1 and 1-2 of the Regulations on the Loading, etc. of Small Ships (Presidential Decree No. 8599 of Jun. 18, 197); Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act

East Asia Construction Industry Corporation

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu799 delivered on March 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

According to the provisions of Articles 6, 20, and 21(1) of the Ship Act (amended by Act No. 3641 of Dec. 31, 1982), and Articles 1 and 1-2 of the Regulations on the Loading, etc. of Small Ships and Articles 1 and 1-2 of the Ship Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8599 of Jun. 18, 197), a barge operated only with a gross tonnage of less than 20 tons or a small ship with a single ship or no ship shall be registered or a ship with a loading port determined. Thus, a barge towed by another ship due to the lack of a navigation engine or navigation engine itself does not have the ability to resist, and therefore, it does not constitute a vessel capable of determining a loading port as a vessel or a small ship, regardless of its tonnage (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da142, May 30, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 200Da11314, Nov. 14, 1975).

Thus, the location of the article in question, which is the basis for the taxation jurisdiction, cannot be determined based on the port of registry, because there is no port of registry with respect to the ship of this case and the ship of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the ship of this case constitutes the ship under the jurisdiction of the defendant, the defendant issued the disposition of this case on the premise that the ship of this case falls under the Incheon port under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and thus the disposition of this case is not unlawful. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful.

The decision of the court below that revoked the disposition of this case by the defendant is just and there is no reason to dispute the judgment of the court below on the basis of an independent opinion that the case is a vessel to be registered or registered. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)