2. A stock company with ethaloids;

2. The plaintiff Korean Land Trust Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On or before January 1, 2014, the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Korea Land Trust") concluded a real estate trust agreement under the Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement of this case") with A and A pursuant to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and Building (hereinafter referred to as "the trust property of this case") with a company engaging in real estate trust business, etc., and completed the trust registration of the trust property of this case, in view of A and A prior to January 1, 2014, the enforcement date of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act").

B. The Plaintiff UBD No. 3 (hereinafter “Plaintiff UBD No. 3”) is the first beneficiary under the instant trust agreement (the person entitled to receive the payment of principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount after deducting the disposal costs, trust fees, etc. from the proceeds of the sale of trust property from the proceeds of trust property) from the company established for the purpose of selling and selling claims, such as loan claims, security rights incidental thereto, and other rights, which are the debtor of the financial restructuring company.

C. In accordance with Article 107 (1) 3 of the Amendment Act, the main sentence of Article 1 and Article 17 (1) of the Addenda (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Supplementary Provisions of this case"), the defendant shall be the trustee of the trust property of this case.

On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff, a land trust in Korea, imposed property tax of KRW 9,029,680 for the building in 2014, KRW 5,056,620 for the City area of Do, KRW 8,445,280 for local education tax, KRW 1,805,930 for local education tax, KRW 56,478,710 for the land in 2014, and KRW 19,357,80 for the urban area, KRW 11,295,740 for the local education tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and whether all pleadings are taken

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the provisions of the Local Tax Act stipulating a person liable to pay property tax on trust property as a truster was newly established on December 27, 1993, the person liable to pay property tax on trust property has not been changed from the truster to the trustee for about 20 years, and the disposition of this case imposed on the person liable to pay property tax on trust property as a trustee pursuant to Article 107 (1) 3 of the amended Act and the supplementary provisions of this case violates the prohibition of retroactive legislation or the protection of trust.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Whether the lawsuit against the Plaintiff UBP is legitimate

On the other hand, even a third party, who is not the direct counter party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking a lawsuit against the administrative disposition, standing to sue should be recognized. However, the legal interest here refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the basis of the disposition concerned, and it does not include indirect or factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1267, Sept. 23, 2003).

[Reference]

However, as seen earlier, the date of Plaintiff UPP is only a third party, not a direct counter to the instant disposition. Thus, even if Plaintiff UPPP is holding preferential rights to the trust property of this case, and even if Plaintiff UPPPP suffers disadvantage as a result of the instant disposition, it constitutes an economic and factual interest, and it is difficult to deem that Plaintiff UPPP is an infringement of legal interests directly protected under the Local Tax Act. If Plaintiff UPPP extends standing to sue to the same case as Plaintiff UPPP date, then Plaintiff UPP would bring about a wide degree of granting standing to sue to the other party to the taxation, or to those holding preferential rights to the taxation object. Accordingly, Plaintiff UPPP is not in a legal position to seek the revocation of the instant disposition in relation to the realization of trust property of the trust property of this case. Ultimately, Plaintiff UPPP is not in a legal position to seek the revocation of the disposition in this case’s case’s own right to reimbursement against the trust property of this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff UPPPPP’s lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful.

5. Whether the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition on July 10, 2014, among the lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff Korea Land Trust, is lawful

According to the evidence evidence No. 20(1)3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit for cancellation shall be instituted ex officio within 90 days from the date the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, etc. (Article 20(1)3 of the Administrative Litigation Act), the Plaintiff’s land trust in Korea is served on July 14, 2014 by the Defendant on July 10, 2014. As such, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s land trust in Korea has filed a lawsuit on October 15, 2014 at the expiration of 90 days from the date the Plaintiff’s land trust in Korea was served on July 14, 2014. As such, the part seeking revocation of the disposition for imposition as of July 10, 2014 among the lawsuit against

6. Determination on the remainder of the claim of the Plaintiff Korea Land Trust

(a) Details of amendments to the Local Tax Act;

The main text of Article 107 (1) of the former Act stipulates that "any person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax," and Article 107 (2) 5 of the same Act stipulates that "in the case of trust property which is not in compliance with paragraph (1) and registered under the name of the trustee in accordance with the Trust Act, the truster shall be liable to pay property tax," and in the case of trust property, the truster is not the trustee but the truster.

However, the amended Act deleted Article 107 (2) 5, while Article 107 (1) (main sentence) provides that a person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax, and Article 107 (3) (proviso) of the same Act provides, however, that in the case of trust property registered in the name of a trustee under the Trust Act and registered in the name of the trustee, a trustee shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax for each truster.

On the other hand, the supplementary provision of this case provides that a trustee, who is not a truster, shall be liable to pay property tax on a trust contract concluded before the enforcement date of the amended Act, as in the instant trust contract, by providing that the said amendment provision shall be enforced from January 1, 2014.

B. Whether the property right is infringed by the law of the court below's appeal

Article 13(2) of the Constitution prohibits the deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation based on historical experience. The Constitutional Court also imposes a retroactive taxation on the past due to a new legislation or a retroactive taxation on the case where a tax liability exists.

In violation of the law.

Here, the type of retroactive legislation is divided into a petition-based legislation and a non-petition-based legislation depending on whether the new law is already terminated or is operating on the facts currently in progress. The former is in principle not permitted constitutionally, and the former can be exceptionally allowed only when there are special circumstances. On the other hand, in principle, even if allowed, the point of view of trust protection in the bridge process between the reasons for the public interest requiring retroactive effect and the request for protection of trust is limited to the legislative formation right (see Constitutional Court Order 9Hun-Ba55, Apr. 26, 2001, etc.).

On or before January 1, 2014, the supplementary provision of this case does not apply to the case where the property tax and three requirements are already met prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act, but it is intended to change the taxpayer from the truster to the trustee rather than to change the taxpayer from the property tax (the tax base date of the property tax is June 1 of each year, and the property tax can be divided on or before June 1, 2014) which meets the first taxation requirements after the amended Act enters into force to the trustee, and it cannot be viewed as a genuine-level legislation that acts as a trustee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Korea Land Trust cannot be seen as a real-level legislation that acts on or before January 1, 2014 because the instant trust contract was concluded before the enforcement date of the amended Act. However, the fact of imposing the property tax is not an act of holding assets as of the tax base date, which is not an act of concluding a trust contract, and this cannot be seen as a violation of the principle of prohibition of the Plaintiff’s property trust under the Constitution of Korea, as well as the legal relationship of the trust of trust of this case.

C. Whether it violates the principle of protection of trust

The principle of protecting trust is derived from the principle of the rule of trust under the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 94Hun-Ba12, Oct. 26, 1995). If, at the time of the enactment or amendment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable and justifiable, and the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation cannot justify the destruction of trust of those parties because the party’s damage caused by the enactment or amendment of a law is extreme, such new legislation is not permissible under the principle of protecting trust. On the other hand, to determine whether such a principle of protecting trust violates the protection of trust, on the other hand, on the one hand, the public interest purpose to be realized through a new legislation should be comprehensively compared and balanced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 9Hun-Ba55, Oct. 26, 199).

On the other hand, the amendment of the Local Tax Act, as seen earlier, changing a taxpayer for property tax on trust property from the above consignee to the trustee, is intended to improve and supplement the problems that are not able to implement the disposition for arrears, such as the seizure of trust property, due to the change of a person liable for property tax and a person registered on trust property. This is to provide for the matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, and to ensure the enhancement of the public interest and purpose of the Local Tax Act.

On the other hand, the trust interest infringed upon by the amended Act was newly charged with property tax liability unexpected at the time of entering into the instant trust contract, and accordingly, it was possible to collect delinquent taxes on the instant trust property. As a result, it may be deemed that there was room for infringement on the right of recovery, such as the cost of the Plaintiff’s land trust, but the calculated amount of property tax under Articles 110 and 111 of the amended Act is 2% of the statutory standard value.

It is limited to the extent that it does not reach the level, and the trustee may recover the paid property from the proceeds of realizing the trust property of this case in the name of the expenses for the disposal of trust affairs, so it is difficult to deem that there

If so, the degree of damage to the trust interest formed before the enforcement of the amended Act and the above public interest to be realized by the amended Act cannot be greater than the former.In the event that the amended Act is unavoidable to conflict of interest to a certain extent, it is reasonable to view that the damage to the trust property caused by changing the taxpayer of property tax from the truster to the trustee is justifiable under the Constitution. Accordingly, the assertion of the Plaintiff Korean land trust is without merit.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition as of July 10, 2014 among the lawsuit of the Plaintiff’s land trust in Korea and the lawsuit of Plaintiff’s U.S. Edppppppy is an incidental law. Therefore, it is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s land trust claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Roster

Judges Kim Jae- Jae

/Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014)

Article 107 (Persons Liable to Pay Tax)

(1) A person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the following persons shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax:

3. In cases of trust property registered and recorded in the name of the trustee under the Trust Act: The trustee in cases of bankruptcy classified for each truster. In such cases, a taxpayer in cases of property classified for each truster shall be deemed a different taxpayer.

Article 110 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base for property tax on land, buildings and housing shall be the value calculated by multiplying the current base value under Article 4 (1) and (2) by the fair market value ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree within the scope determined by any of the following, in consideration of the trend of the real estate market, local financial conditions, etc.:

1. Land and buildings: From 50/100 to 90/100 of the statutory standard price;

2. Housing: From 40/100 to 80/100 of the statutory standard price.

Article 111 (Tax Rates)

(1) The amount of property tax shall be the amount calculated by applying the following standard tax rates to the tax base under Article 110:

1. Land:

(a) Objects of general aggregate taxation;

(b) Omission of special aggregate taxation;

(c) Objects of separate taxation;

(i)former, paddy field, orchard and woodland: 0.7/1000 of the tax base;

(b) Land for golf courses and high-class recreation centers: 40/1000 of the tax base;

(c) Any other land: 2/100 of the tax base;

A Addenda Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2014.

Article 17 (Transitional Measures concerning Change in Taxpayer of Property Tax on Trust Property)

(1) Where a property tax liability becomes effective before this Act enters into force, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 107 (2) 5, the previous provisions shall apply.

/ former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014)

Article 107 (Persons Liable to Pay Tax)

(1) A person who actually owns property as at the tax base date of property tax shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in cases of public property, the share holder shall be deemed the person liable to pay the share (where the share is not indicated, it shall be deemed equal to the share), and in cases of the owner of a building and appurtenant land of a house, the owner shall be deemed the person liable to pay property tax on the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market price of the building and appurtenant land under Article 4 (

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following persons as of the tax base date for property tax shall be liable to pay property tax:

5. In cases of trust property registered in the name of trustee under the Trust Act, the truster (Provided, That in cases of trust property purchased in money by a regional housing association or workplace housing association under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Housing Act, but in cases of a trust property purchased in money by a member of a regional housing association or workplace housing association, the relevant regional housing association or workplace housing association). In such cases, the trustee (in cases of a regional housing association or workplace housing association, the member of the association)