[부당이익금][집29(3)민,201;공1982.1.1.(671) 47]
In violation of Article 130 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945 of Dec. 31, 1976), the validity of a disposition imposing registration tax on the difference between the actual acquisition price and the current market price (the same as the reported price) and whether the money collected thereby is unjust (affirmative)
According to Article 130 of the Local Tax Act (Law No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976), the tax base for registration tax on real estate shall be the reported amount by the applicant for registration, but if no report is made or if the reported amount falls short of the standard amount of taxation, the standard amount of taxation concerned shall be the tax base. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff reported the standard amount of taxation to the tax base and paid the registration tax and the defense tax, if the real acquisition price exceeds the standard amount of taxation, the disposition imposing registration tax and the defense tax on the difference exceeds the standard amount of taxation at the time, without any legal basis, is a disposition of invalidation without legal basis
Article 130 of the Local Tax Act (Law No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 741 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 76Da1979 delivered on April 26, 1977, 78Da778 delivered on June 27, 1978, 81Da400 delivered on June 9, 1981, 80Nu67 delivered on May 27, 1980
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 81Na153 delivered on May 26, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff purchased the apartment on December 26, 1977, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and filed a tax amount of KRW 3,904,767 consistent with the standard market price of registration tax base, with the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and paid the registration tax and defense tax accordingly. The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu voluntarily paid the registration tax and defense tax. The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, as of February 24, 1979, the actual acquisition price of KRW 11,670,00 exceeds the above tax base amount, and exceeds the above tax base amount, and additionally imposed the registration tax amount of KRW 23,277 and KRW 46,646, and the defense tax amount of KRW 307,859, including the above tax imposed on June 8, 1979 and the penalty tax imposed on KRW 307,859, as the above additional tax imposed on the defendant did not have any legal basis.
However, according to Articles 130(1) and 111(2) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976) which was enforced at the time of the occurrence of the cause of taxation, the registration tax base of real estate shall be the reported value by the applicant, but there is no provision that the current base of taxation shall be the standard of the current base of taxation (Article 3174, Dec. 28, 1979) otherwise, there is no provision that the current base of taxation shall be the actual acquisition price (Article 111(5) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 137.29 of the same Act, which provides that if the Plaintiff reported the standard amount of taxation as a tax base and the actual acquisition price thereof exceed the current base of taxation, it shall not be deemed that the current base of taxation exceeds the current base of taxation, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that there is no room for the court below to impose taxes on the difference between the actual acquisition price and the tax base of taxation (Article 1797.47.97
(2) The court below's decision that there was an error of mistake of facts or violation of evidence collection due to incomplete deliberation, and it does not fall under any of the cases stipulated in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act in this case where it is clear that it is a small amount of claims under the record, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)