Article 11(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995, Dec. 6, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the tax base of acquisition tax shall be the value at the time of acquisition. Paragraph (2) provides that the tax base of acquisition tax shall be the value at the time of acquisition, as prescribed by Municipal Ordinance, in cases where there is no indication of the declared or declared value or such declared value falls short of the standard market value of acquisition as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Paragraph (5) provides that the actual market value of acquisition shall be the standard market value of taxation, notwithstanding the proviso of paragraphs (2) and (3). Paragraph (6) provides that where the price of acquisition is evidenced by those prescribed by Presidential Decree among notarial deeds, contracts, or other deeds, the actual market value of acquisition tax shall be the standard market value of acquisition. Article 111(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that the actual market value of acquisition is below the standard market value of acquisition at the time of acquisition.

In light of the contents and purport of the above provision, the "statement" in Article 82-2 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulates that the acquisition price of the taxable object, such as sales contract (including sales certificate), report, or contract signed and sealed by the State, local government, or public organization as provided in Articles 110-3 (1) and 110-4 (1) of the Act, for which the actual acquisition price is proved, means that the acquisition price of the taxable object, such as sales contract, is actually removed, and documents or account books, are not included in the calculation of acquisition price (the same shall apply to registration tax with the same content as the acquisition tax provided in Article 130 (1) through (3) of the Local Tax Act).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff, a private entrepreneur conducting the housing construction and sales business, newly built and acquired the apartment house in this case and completed registration of preservation of ownership thereof. The defendant, along with the final return on income tax and the final return on tax base from 1991 to 1993 taxable year, submitted by the plaintiff to the head of the competent tax office, and the balance sheet and cost statement submitted to the country under Article 82-2 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, shall be deemed as the "report submitted to the country". As of December 31, 1991 and December 31, 192, 192, the current calculation of acquisition tax and registration tax in this case shall be deemed as the actual acquisition price, and since the balance sheet and cost statement constitute not only new construction expenses, expenses for sampled housing, construction expenses, charges for landscaping, fire-fighting facilities, cost and construction expenses of the apartment house in this case, but also the current calculation of acquisition price of the apartment house in this case can be deemed as unlawful.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is inappropriate, the conclusion that the taxation disposition in this case is unlawful is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles, and lack of reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground 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.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)