[취득세부과처분취소][공1974.7.15.(492),7913]
Whether acquisition tax may be imposed on the sale and purchase of possessory right in the river reconstruction site.
In the case of taking over possessory right of a cover site constructed on a river, this site can be seen as "other buildings", which are one of the provisions of Article 104 (4) of the Local Tax Act, in that it is a cover structure or structure, and the assignment of possessory right can be seen as "trade or other similar acquisition" among the acquisition provisions of subparagraph 8 of Article 104 of the Local Tax Act, so acquisition tax may be imposed on the sale and purchase of possessory right of a cover site.
Article 104 of the Local Tax Act
Yang Dong-dong Architectural Society, Attorney Oi-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others
Gwangju High Court Decision 72 Gu3 delivered on August 16, 1973
All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, while the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized, based on evidence, that Defendant Si newly constructed a double site for the purpose of building a commercial house in this case and transferred some of them to the plaintiff with the right of possession, and decided that this double site constitutes "other buildings" as one of the building regulations of Article 104 subparagraph 4 of the Local Tax Act, and in light of the fact that the double site in this case is a strings building or a structure, it cannot be viewed as "other buildings" under subparagraph 4 of Article 104 of the Local Tax Act, and the assignment of possessory right can be deemed as "sale or other similar acquisition" under subparagraph 8 of Article 104 of the above Act as the original acquisition period. Thus, the judgment that the defendant imposed acquisition tax on the plaintiff with respect to the sale of the right of possession of the double site in this case is legitimate, and it cannot be viewed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 104 subparagraph 4 of the Local Tax Act or it is inconsistent with the reasoning.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
In light of the evidence adopted by the original judgment and the whole purport of oral argument compared with the records, the non-party et al. and 139 persons except the non-party et al. shall select the floor and building of each building to be occupied in order to build the commercial housing on the dup site acquired by the plaintiff, and only the building permission was granted in the name of the plaintiff for convenience, and the non-party et al. shall commence construction with the funds financed by the non-party Gwangju Agricultural Cooperative branch under the payment guarantee of each defendant's city and build the 5 Do Do 2,764.94 Do Do 5 Do 5 Do 764 and each tenant is under the divided ownership (joint ownership), and if the facts are established, it can be recognized that each tenant is under the divided ownership (pent roof, wall, change, stairs, entrance, etc.). Therefore, it is not possible to impose the acquisition tax on the plaintiff on the premise that each tenant who is the owner of the building, but it cannot be viewed as unlawful and inconsistent with the original judgment.
Therefore, each appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)