[부당이득금반환][공1996.1.1.(1),38]
[1] The validity of taxation disposition that misleads the legal relation or factual basis of the taxable object
[2] The case holding that the taxation disposition, which was conducted by mistake as to whether the real estate registration falls under the category of the "real estate registration" as a result of the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city, is not void
[1] In a taxation disposition that misleads the tax requirements, if there are objective circumstances or factual relations that could lead to misconception of the legal relations or factual relations subject to taxation, and if it is possible to clarify whether it is subject to taxation only by accurately investigating the factual relations, the defect cannot be deemed to be apparent, and thus, the tax disposition that misleads the legal relations or factual relations of the taxable object cannot be deemed to be null and void, even if the defect is serious.
[2] The case holding that the taxation disposition, which was conducted by mistake as to whether the real estate registration constitutes the "real estate registration due to the establishment of a branch or a branch office in a large city" subject to heavy registration tax, shall not be void as a matter
[1] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da10740 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2804 delivered on September 27, 1994) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 81Nu69 delivered on October 26, 1982 (Gong1983, 104 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 207) Supreme Court Decision 94Da35787 delivered on February 17, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1414)
Samhee Korea Co., Ltd. (Attorney Shin Shin-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other (Attorney Go Young-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 93Na40876 delivered on July 26, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the three and eight buildings of this case were located in one building, and the management office of this building was located in the first floor of the 7 buildings and 8 buildings underground. As such, the court below did not confirm the fact that the above management office was located in the 7 buildings and the underground part of the 7 buildings of this building and the 8 buildings, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and the judgment below did not err in misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence. In light of other facts and judgment determined by the court below, the determination of the above facts did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal theory, such as incomplete deliberation, etc.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
2. If there is an objective reason to believe that there is a legal relation or factual basis that is subject to taxation in the taxation disposition that misleads the tax requirements, and it is clear whether or not it is subject to taxation only after accurately investigating the factual basis, the defect is not apparent. Thus, even if the defect is serious, the taxation disposition that misleads the legal relation or factual basis of the subject of taxation cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da10740 delivered on September 27, 1994).
If the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case (the above eight parts) and used part of the underground floors as a warehouse, and the plaintiff registered the business in the tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the underground floor as "Yhee-dong branch", and the business type as "real estate lease", and the underground floor of the above seven parts, the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case and registered the ownership transfer of the real estate of this case constitutes "real estate registration following the establishment of a branch or branch office of a corporation within a large city" subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, the issue of whether the above management office is the plaintiff's office, the attitude of operating the real estate rental business of this case, and the circumstances leading up to the registration of the name of the business operator, etc., can only be found. Thus, even if the tax disposition of this case was conducted by mistake of the above taxation requirements, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case is invalid because it is not clear that it is objectively.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for invalidation of taxation as a matter of course.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)