[2] In a case where the acquisition tax is imposed by a contract which is not a seal of approval contract with the actual acquisition value as its tax base, whether the Ordinance to reduce acquisition tax on the seal of approval contract can be applied

[2] Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the text of the law, barring any special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. According to Article 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Equal Taxation following the Implementation of the Inspection Contract System, Article 40(2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 4422 of Dec. 14, 191), which provides that the reduction of the acquisition tax and registration tax imposed on an individual transaction among the approval seal contract submitted at the time of application for the registration of real estate under Article 40(2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 4422 of Dec. 14, 191) shall apply to the acquisition tax and registration tax imposed on an individual transaction among other documents

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

According to Article 111(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995 of Dec. 6, 1995, hereinafter the same), which is a provision on the tax base of acquisition tax and registration tax, Article 111(1) of the Act, the value as at the time of acquisition as at the time of acquisition of real estate as at the time of acquisition shall, in principle, be the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of the object of taxation. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the purchaser shall report the tax base of the above Paragraph (1), i.e., the value as at the time of acquisition, and if the reported value is not reported or is below the standard market value, it shall be based on the standard market value. Meanwhile, Article 111(5) and (6) of the Act provides that the actual acquisition value as at the time of acquisition shall be determined as the tax base regardless of the return of the acquisitor. Thus, even if the purchaser filed a return under Article 111(2) of the Act after acquisition, if it can be proved by a document 198.

Therefore, it shall not be deemed that a buyer fails to report the tax base under Article 111(2) of the Act, or fails to indicate the reported value, or that a sales contract corresponding to other certificates under Article 111(6) of the Act is limited to those submitted at the time of acquisition or acquisition of the relevant real estate, or at the time of first imposition of acquisition tax and registration tax by the tax authority, only when the reported value falls short of the standard market value.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions of the Local Tax Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and other grounds of appeal are nothing more than erroneous with the contents of the judgment of the court below. The grounds of appeal

2. On the third ground for appeal

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. According to Article 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Equal Taxation following the Implementation of the Approval Contract System, which was enforced at the time of the instant case, the provisions on reduction of acquisition tax and registration tax shall apply to the acquisition tax and registration tax imposed on the transaction between individuals (hereinafter referred to as the "approval Agreement") under Article 40 (2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 4422 of Dec. 14, 191), among the approval seal contract submitted at the time of filing an application for registration of real estate under Article 40 (2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 44422 of Feb. 22, 1994).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the reduction provision cannot be applied to this case on which tax was imposed under a sales contract, which is not a seal of approval contract, and that it is not different in conclusion by reporting and paying the acquisition tax and registration tax in accordance with the seal of approval contract at the time of acquiring the land of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of fair taxation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)