The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As a matter of principle, the tax by the method of tax return is determined by the taxpayer's own determination of the tax base and the amount of tax, and the payment is determined by the specific tax liability determined by the return, and the State and local governments hold the tax amount paid based on the finalized tax claim.

Unless a taxpayer's filing of a return is void as a result of significant and apparent defects, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment.

Here, whether a defect in the act of reporting constitutes the invalidity of the law because it is significant and clear should be determined reasonably by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies for defective act of reporting as a basis for the act of reporting from a teleological perspective, and by individually identifying specific circumstances caused by the act of reporting.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da60363 delivered on December 5, 1995, 2006Da81257 delivered on April 23, 2009, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the instant C factory on September 17, 2009; and (b) even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant real estate was based on the division of property subject to agreement divorce, and thus, imposed acquisition tax.

Although there is a defect in lack of case, the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on the ground that each of the reports on acquisition tax in this case cannot be deemed to have a serious and obvious defect, and thus it cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the concept of acquisition or the legal doctrine on the invalidity of a report as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Justices on the bench.