2. A limited company specializing in emulsion cases, such as a limited company;

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff Han Bank are dismissed.

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

A. On January 1, 2014, before January 1, 2014, the enforcement date of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12513, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act"), the Plaintiff Han Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Han Bank") concluded a real estate trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement in this case") under the Trust Act with the company engaging in real estate trust business, and made a trust registration of the trust property in this case with respect to the trust property of this case between Jinho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and 317-2 and five lots of land (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement in this case"), and the trust property of this case.

B. The Plaintiff U.S. Specialized Asset-Backed Company (hereinafter “Plaintiff Special Purpose Company”) is a first beneficiary under the instant trust agreement (the beneficiary is entitled to receive the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the disposal costs and trust remuneration, etc. from the proceeds of realizing trust assets from the proceeds of realizing trust assets, and the claims of senior right holders) from the company established for the purpose of acquiring and transferring claims, security rights, and other property rights (asset-backed assets) pursuant to

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 Rule of this case"), the Defendant issued a local tax disposition, such as the statement in [Attachment 1] Disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition in this case") on July 7, 2014 and September 11, 2014, against the Plaintiff Han Bank, the trustee of the instant trust property of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 10, 2-3, 4-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the lawsuits of the Plaintiff Han Bank, the part of the claim for revocation of each disposition imposing local tax listed in attached Table 1 and 2, and whether the relevant case is legitimate in the lawsuit of the limited liability company specializing in securitization

A. As to the claim for the cancellation of each local tax imposed upon the Plaintiff Han Bank’s action No. 1 and No. 2

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff bank becomes aware of the disposition, etc. However, in full view of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraph 1, 2, and subparagraph 5-2, and 3 of subparagraph 1-2 and subparagraph 5-3 of subparagraph 1-2, the Plaintiff Han Bank may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff bank received a notice to pay each local tax imposed on July 14, 2014 (Attachment 1) 1 and 2, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff bank filed a lawsuit with this court on October 17, 2014 after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff bank’s lawsuit. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of local tax imposed on the Plaintiff bank’s lawsuit is unlawful after the lapse of the filing period.

B. As to the plaintiff special purpose company's lawsuit

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the above plaintiff's lawsuit.

Even a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue shall be recognized. However, the legal interest here refers to cases where there are direct and specific interests protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not include cases where there are indirect or factual and economic interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1267, Sept. 23, 2003).

However, as seen earlier, as the Plaintiff special purpose company is only a third party who is not directly the other party to the instant disposition, even if the Plaintiff special purpose company holds preferential rights to the instant trust property and thereby suffers disadvantages as to the amount equivalent to the property tax due to the instant disposition, this constitutes an economic and social interest, and it does not constitute an infringement of the legal interest directly protected under the Local Tax Act. If the Plaintiff special purpose company expands standing to sue to the same case as the Plaintiff special purpose company, it would result in the Plaintiff special purpose company widely granting standing to sue to the other party to the instant taxation or to the persons holding preferential rights to reimbursement regarding the object of taxation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff special purpose company cannot be deemed to have a legal status to seek the revocation of the instant disposition itself, which was made against the Plaintiff Han Bank, apart from taking measures such as claiming preferential rights to reimbursement in relation to the realization procedure of the instant trust property.

Therefore, the plaintiff special purpose company cannot be deemed to have standing to sue under Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the lawsuit against the plaintiff special purpose company is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the remainder of the claim by the Plaintiff Han Bank

A. Summary of the cause of the claim by the Plaintiff Han Bank

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, there was no change from the truster to the truster to the trustee. Thus, it is against the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation or the principle of protection of trust and trust to impose property tax on the trustee under Article 107 (1) 3 of the amended Act and the supplementary provisions of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 2] The entry in the relevant statutes are as follows.

(c) Revisions to the Local Tax Act;

The main sentence of Article 107 (1) of the former Act provides that "any person who actually owns any property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax," and Article 107 (2) 5 of the same Act provides that "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in cases of trust property registered under the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster shall be liable to pay property tax." In cases of trust property, a person liable to pay property tax is not the trustee but the truster.

However, the amended Act deleted Article 107 (2) 5, while Article 107 (1) (main sentence) provides that "any person who actually owns any property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax," and subparagraph 3 of Article 107 provides that "in the case of any trust property registered in the name of a trustee pursuant to the Trust Act and registered in the name of a trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the trustee shall be deemed the person liable to pay property tax for each truster. In the case of trust property, the truster has been changed from the truster to the trustee, and the purpose of the amendment is to enable the disposition for arrears

On the other hand, the Addenda provision of this case provides that the above amendment provision shall be enforced from January 1, 2014, and the trustee, who is not the truster, shall bear the property tax liability as to the trust contract concluded before the enforcement date of the amendment, as in the instant trust contract.

D. Whether the property right is infringed upon by the law at issue of a petition

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 by a new legislation.

In addition, it was against the above constitutional provision to require retroactive taxation even if there is a tax liability.

In this context, 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 current facts in progress. In principle, the former is not permitted constitutionally, and the former may be exceptionally permitted in cases where there are special circumstances. On the other hand, in principle, the latter is allowed, but the perspective of protecting trust in the course of bridge between the reason for public interest requiring retroactive effect and the request for protection of trust will impose restrictions on the legislative formation right (see Constitutional Court Order 9Hun-Ba55, Apr. 26, 2001, etc.).

The supplementary provisions of this case do not intend to change a taxpayer of property tax from a truster to a trustee by applying the revised contents on or before January 1, 2014, when the requirements for property tax assessment already met before the enforcement date of the amended Act, but merely intends to change the taxpayer from the property tax (the tax base date of property tax is June 1 of each year, and the property tax is divided on or before June 1, 2014) to a trustee after the enforcement date of the amended Act, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a genuine-level legislation that acts as a trustee. Accordingly, since the instant trust contract was concluded before January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff bank argues that the instant supplementary provisions constitute a genuine-level legislation. However, the reason for taxation of property tax is not the act of concluding a trust contract, but the fact or legal relationship is the fact that the current tax base date has not arrived at all before January 1, 2014, which is the enforcement date of the amended Act. Of course, it can not be seen as a problem of deprivation of property rights by the Plaintiff as a trust agreement.

Therefore, the supplementary provision of this case declares the principle of prohibition of deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation.

The plaintiff bank's assertion against Article 13 (2) of the Constitution cannot be viewed as a violation of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution.

E. Whether it violates the principle of protection of trust

The principle of protecting trust is derived from the principle of the rule of law 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 if the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation cannot justify the destruction of trust of the 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 is violated, on the one hand, the purpose of public interest to be realized through a new legislation should be compared and balanced comprehensively on the other hand, on the one hand, such as the value of protecting the infringed interest, the degree of infringement, the degree of damage to the trust, the method of infringement of trust, etc.

As seen earlier, changing a taxpayer of property tax from a truster to a 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 a change of a person liable for property tax and a person registered as a truster on trust property. This is to provide for the matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes on which local financial revenue is the basis of local finance, thereby satisfying the basic purpose of the Local Tax Act to promote the financial loyalty of the local government, and thus,

On the other hand, due to the amendment, the trust profit infringed upon by the Plaintiff Han Bank was newly liable to pay property tax unexpected at the time of entering into the instant trust contract, and accordingly, it became possible to collect delinquent taxes on the instant trust property.

Although it may be deemed that the right to recover, such as the cost of the Plaintiff Han Bank, has been infringed, the trustee may recover the paid property tax first from the proceeds from the sale of the trust property of this case as the cost for performing trust affairs.

Therefore, the degree of damage to trust interests created prior to the enforcement of the amended Act and the above public interest to be realized by the amended Act cannot be more severe than the former. In addition, considering the fact that in the case of the amendment of the Act, it is inevitable to conflict of interests to a certain extent, either significantly between the existing legal order or among the parties, it is reasonable to view that the damage to trust property caused by the change of a taxpayer of property tax from the truster to the trustee is justified under the Constitution. Accordingly, the assertion by the Plaintiff bank is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits of the Plaintiff Han Bank Co., Ltd., 【Attachment 1’s claim for revocation of each disposition of local tax as stated in 1 and 2’s disposition Nos. 1 and 2, and the lawsuit of the Plaintiff Han Bank Specialized in Asset-backed Securitization is incidental to each other. Therefore, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Lee Jae-han

Details of disposition

(unit: Won)

The aggregate amount of tax on facilities, property tax and regional education tax on the date of Serial Disposition on July 7, 12014, the amount of 317-2 ground factories 1,514, 1901, 377, 1302, 8303, 8303, 150 buildings 317-9 ground factories, 340, 340463, 3308,0601, 111, 730 buildings 3201, 317-2 and 512,523, 3802, 504, 67015, 67028, 193, 393, 3930, 3050, 1503, 317-9, 150, 2014, 31, 3108, 2014.

[Attachment 2]

Relevant statutes

【Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014)】

§ 107. Taxpayers

(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 under the name of a trustee pursuant to the Trust Act: The trustee with respect to the property classified for each truster. In such cases, a taxpayer for each truster with respect to the property classified for each truster shall be deemed a different taxpayer;

§ 110. Tax standards

(1) The tax base of property tax on land, buildings and housing shall be the value calculated by multiplying the statutory standard prices under Article 4 (1) and (2) by the fair market price ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree within the scope prescribed by any of the following, considering 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;

Standard tax rate of KRW 50 million between KRW 50 million and KRW 100 million below KRW 50 million, but KRW 2.100,000 exceeding KRW 100,000 + KRW 50,000 in excess of KRW 3.250,000 + KRW 50,000 in excess of KRW 10,000 + 5/1,000 in excess of KRW 50,000.

(b) Separate aggregate taxation;

Standard tax rate of 20 million won or less but 1 billion won or more but less than 1 billion won but 2.4 billion won or more 2.2 billion won + 32.8 million won or more of the excess amount of 20 million won + 4/1,000 of the excess amount of 1 billion won

(c) Objects of separate taxation;

(a) Land for rice paddy, field, paddy, field, stock farm, and forest: 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)]

§ 107. Taxpayers

(1) A person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax.

Provided, That in case of public property, the share holder shall be deemed to be the person liable for tax payment for the portion corresponding to the share (if there is no indication of share, the share shall be deemed to be equal), and if the owner of a house and appurtenant land are different, the owner shall be deemed the person liable for tax payment for the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market value of the building and appurtenant land under Article 4(1)

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

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, 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, a member) shall be deemed a tax manager under Article 135 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes. Finally, it shall be