[2] In a case where a special purpose company merely acquired and held a secured claim, which is a securitized asset, at the time of the enforcement of Articles 120(1)12 and 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, whether acquisition tax is not reduced or exempted due to the application of Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is a statute, at the time of the establishment of tax liability (affirmative)

[2] Article 120(1)12 and Article 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) where a special purpose company takes over a secured claim, which is a securitized asset, at the time of the enforcement of Article 120(1)12 and Article 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) and takes place as an act closely related to the acquisition of real estate by acquiring the secured claim through an application for purchase at the auction procedure of the secured real estate after obtaining a decision of a permit for sale from the applicant for purchase or acquiring the purchaser’s status, the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “Special Provisions on Acquisition Tax”) shall not be applied to the special provisions on acquisition of real estate at the time of the secured asset.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Articles 120(1)12 and 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) provide that “Where a special purpose company acquires securitization assets from an asset holder or another special purpose company, or manages, operates, or disposes of them in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan, acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50/100 on real estate acquired by the special purpose company by December 31, 2012.” However, Article 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Jan. 1, 201) provides that “the special purpose company acquires real estate from the asset holder or another special purpose company subject to acquisition by transfer from the asset holder or another special purpose company subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax by 10/100 on real estate acquired by transfer from the asset-backed securitization plan.”

In the meantime, Article 2(6) of the Addenda to the amended Special Provision provides that "the amended provision concerning acquisition tax under this Act shall apply from the portion first acquired after this Act enters into force," and Article 52 (hereinafter "the supplementary provision of this case") provides that "the local tax imposed, reduced, or exempted in accordance with the previous provision at the time this Act enters into force shall be governed by the previous provision as a general transitional measure."

B. In cases where a tax statute was amended disadvantageous to a taxpayer, and where the provision that "any tax to be imposed, reduced, or exempted pursuant to the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force is intended to protect the person liable for tax payment's vested rights or trust." Thus, it is intended to protect the person liable for tax payment by satisfying all the taxation requirements at the time of the amendment before the amendment, or to protect the person liable for tax payment by reliance on the tax reduction and exemption under the previous Acts and subordinate statutes before the amendment, even if the tax requirements are not satisfied, it should be deemed that the person liable for tax payment should protect the person liable for tax payment by reliance on the acts closely related to the requirements at the time of the amendment, such as acquiring a certain legal status or forming a legal relationship, and if it does not reach such a level, the Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the establishment of tax liability, not before the amendment, should be applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu5666, May 24, 1994; 201Du3837.

C. In light of the language and structure of the aforementioned provision and the provisions of the amended special provisions, in order to reasonably coordinate the scope of special taxation cases against a special purpose company and promote the equity of taxation with general creditors, the “real estate acquired by a special purpose company in the management, operation, and disposal of the acquired securitization assets by the transfer of the securitization assets by the transfer of the securitization assets, which are securitized assets, is excluded from acquisition tax reduction or exemption,” etc., any real estate acquired by a special purpose company by directly filing an application for purchase at the auction procedure of the secured real estate in order to recover the claim after the transfer of the secured real estate claim, which is securitized assets, shall not be deemed as acquisition tax reduction or exemption pursuant to the amended special provisions.

On the other hand, the amended special law was amended disadvantageous to a special purpose company by reducing the scope of reduction and exemption of acquisition tax. The former special purpose company’s provision is deemed to have provided that acquisition tax shall be reduced or exempted in cases where real estate is acquired as part of the act of managing, operating, and disposing of the securitization assets acquired by the special purpose company for a limited period until December 31, 2012. This case’s supplementary provision provides that acquisition tax to be reduced or exempted pursuant to the former special purpose company’s provisions shall be governed in order to protect the trust of the special purpose company. Thus, in cases where a special purpose company conducts an act closely related to the acquisition of real estate as part of the act of managing, operating, and disposing of securitization assets at the time of the enforcement of the former special purpose

Therefore, in cases where a special purpose company acquired the secured collateral bonds, which are securitization assets, at the time of the enforcement of the former special purpose law, and applied for purchase at the auction procedure of the secured real estate, and obtained a decision of permission for sale, and thereby acquired the status of the applicant for purchase or purchaser, and thereby becomes closely related to the acquisition of real estate, acquisition tax shall be reduced or exempted pursuant to the former special purpose law pursuant to the provisions of the Addenda of this case for the protection of trust of the special purpose company. However, even if the sales proceeds have been fully paid after the enforcement of the amended special purpose law, if the special purpose company merely acquired the secured collateral bonds, which are securitized assets, at the time of the enforcement of the former special purpose law, and the special purpose company acquired the secured collateral bonds, which are securitized assets at the time of the enforcement of the former special purpose law, even if it trusted the acquisition tax reduction or exemption on the acquisition of real estate, it is merely merely just a simple expectation, and it cannot be deemed that it should be protected

D. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the Plaintiff, a special purpose company, acquired the instant real estate by taking over and holding the bonds secured by the instant real estate at the time of the enforcement of the former special purpose company provisions, and subsequently acquired the said real estate by participating in the auction procedure to recover the relevant bonds, is justifiable in holding that acquisition tax is not reduced or exempted due to the application of the amended special purpose provisions, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the interpretation of the amended special provision of the Act or the legal principles on the protection

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that there was a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to not perform its duty to report and pay the acquisition tax of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the trust that acquisition tax would be reduced or exempted for the acquisition of the real estate of this case without any reason attributable to the Defendant’s public opinion list.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on “justifiable cause” which may avoid the imposition of the principle of trust protection or penalty tax.

3. As to the fifth ground for appeal

A. According to Articles 2(1)15 and 55(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, a local tax payment notice shall be imposed upon a tax payment notice stating the taxable year and items of the local tax to be paid, the law that provides the basis for imposing the local tax, and the municipal ordinances of the relevant local government, the taxpayer’s address and name, tax base, tax rate, tax rate, amount of tax, deadline for payment, place for payment, measures to be taken in the event that the local tax is not paid by the due date, and remedies for the illegality or mistake of the imposition. The above provisions purport to ensure the fairness of tax administration by having the tax authority take a careful and reasonable disposition in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law, and at the same time, to provide the taxpayer with detailed information about the details of the taxation disposition, and to provide the taxpayer with convenience in filing an objection. As such, a tax payment notice must, in principle, specify the property subject to taxation in detail so that the taxpayer can know the details of the taxation disposition, the tax base amount and applicable rate (see, etc.).

In addition, when both a principal tax and a penalty tax are to be imposed based on a single tax notice, the amount and the basis for calculation of the principal tax and the penalty tax shall be stated in the tax notice separately; and where multiple types of penalty taxes are to be imposed, the amount and the basis for calculation thereof shall be stated separately. As such, even in a case where only the sum of a principal tax and a penalty tax are stated without properly distinguishing the amount and the basis for calculation between the principal tax and the penalty tax and the penalty tax, and the basis for calculation thereof are stated, such taxation is unlawful (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347 decided

Meanwhile, if it is evident that a taxpayer was not at all hindered in the decision-making and appeal of dissatisfaction with the disposition by the tax authority prior to the taxation disposition, it can be deemed that the defect of the tax payment notice was supplemented or cured. However, the document that can supplement the defect of the tax payment notice should be limited to the one that can be integrated with the tax payment notice because the document that can supplement the defect of the tax payment notice should be delivered to the taxpayer prior to the tax payment notice in accordance with the statutes, etc., and the essential contents of the tax payment notice should be properly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5505, Oct. 13, 2005, etc.).

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court revealed the following: (a) Each principal tax of the instant tax payment notice includes only the aggregate of the tax amount for acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax (hereinafter “acquisition tax, etc.”) and the additional tax, but does not include the separate tax amount for each principal tax, including acquisition tax, and the additional tax, or the tax amount for each type of additional tax; and (b) the only tax base of acquisition tax and the calculation basis for each principal tax, including acquisition tax, are not adequately stated; and (c) the notice sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff prior to the instant tax payment notice also states the tax amount for each principal tax, including acquisition tax, and the additional tax on negligent tax and the additional tax on negligent tax for arrears, including the additional tax on negligent tax on each principal tax of acquisition tax, etc., but the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax and the additional tax on negligent tax on each principal tax, such as acquisition

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, each principal tax of the acquisition tax of this case and the notice of tax payment of additional tax are defective, and the defect is not supplemented or cured. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty payment notice, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error has merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)