2. A limited company specializing in securitization referred to in subparagraph 1 of the Drackers.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the real estate trust company is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

A. On May 8, 2008, Plaintiff K non-real estate trust company (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff K non-real estate trust”) entered into a real estate trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the trust agreement of this case”) under the Trust Act with the company engaging in the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the trust of this case and the business of the business of the business of the trust of this case. The trust of this case completed the trust registration of the trust property of this case.

B. Plaintiff Dracker subparagraph 1 is a company established for the purpose of claims, security rights and other property rights, and the quantity and transfer thereof, etc., and a creditor of A and Jincheon Construction as well as a preferential beneficiary of the instant trust property (a person entitled to preferential repayment of the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the disposal costs of trust affairs, trust remuneration, etc. from the proceeds from the sale of trust property from the proceeds

C. Pursuant to Article 107(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act"), the Defendant imposed property tax on the Plaintiff KB real estate trust, which is the trustee of the instant trust property, KRW 9,849,280, local resource and facility tax, KRW 4,367,870, local education tax, KRW 1,969,850 on the instant trust property, among the instant trust property, on August 11, 2014. The Defendant imposed property tax on the instant trust property, KRW 9,849,280, local resource and facility tax, KRW 4,367,870, local education tax, and KRW 850 on the instant trust property on September 11, 2014

Property tax was imposed in 51,365,720 won, local education tax was imposed in 10,273,140 won (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the above property tax, local resource tax, and local education tax imposition disposition").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the determination on the legitimacy of the part of the claim filed by the Plaintiff Digital Asset-backed Company Specializing in the Asset-backed Securitization Act No. 1

The Plaintiff Digital Company Specialized in Asset-backed Securitization No. 1 seeks to revoke each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiff KB real estate trust, who is the trustee of the trust property of this case, as the priority beneficiary of the trust property of this case. On its own initiative, we examine whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate.

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, the standing to sue is 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, but it does not include cases where there are indirect or factual and economic interests.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff Digital Company Specializing in Asset-backed Securitization No. 1 is only a third party, not the other party to each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, even if Plaintiff Digital Company Specializing in Asset-backed Securitization No. 1 holds preferential rights to the trust property of this case, and as a result, Plaintiff Digital Company Specializing in Asset-backed Securitization No. 1 holds preferential rights to benefit as to the trust property of this case, which is the disposition of this case, thereby causing disadvantages to the reduction of preferential rights to benefit, this constitutes an economic and factual interest and it is difficult

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the limited liability company specializing in the securitization of Plaintiff Drackers No. 1 is in a legal position to directly seek the revocation of each disposition of this case against Plaintiff Drack Real Estate Trust. Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of Plaintiff Drackers No. 1’s claim against the limited liability company specializing in the securitization of Plaintiff Drackers No. 1 is unlawful by a person who has no standing to sue

3. Determination as to the claim for the Plaintiff’s non-real estate trust

A. Plaintiff’s assertion of the non-real estate trust

Since the provisions of the Local Tax Act stipulating a person liable to pay property tax on trust property as a truster had been newly established on December 27, 1993, the person liable to pay property tax on trust property for about 20 years had not been changed from the truster to the trustee. Thus, each disposition of this case where property tax is imposed on the trust property of this case that was concluded before the amendment was enforced by applying Article 107 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act to the trust property of this case, which was the trustee, is against the principle of prohibition of legislation or the principle of protection of trust.

B. Relevant statutes

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(c) Details of amendments to the Local Tax Act;

The main text of Article 107 (1) of the former Act stipulates that a person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax, and Article 107 (2) 5 of the former Act stipulates that "in the case of trust property which is not in compliance with paragraph (1) and registered under the name of the trustee in accordance with the Trust Act, the truster shall be liable to pay property tax."

However, the amended Act deletes Article 107, Paragraph 2, Item 5, while the person who actually owns the property as of the property tax base date is liable to pay the property tax.

However, in the case of trust property recorded in the name of the trustee under the Trust Act, the trustee shall be deemed to be the person liable for tax payment. In the case of trust property by the above amendment, the person liable for tax payment has changed from the truster to the trustee. The purpose of the proviso is to enable the disposition on default of trust property.

On the other hand, the main text of Article 1 and Article 17(1) of the Addenda of the amended Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Addenda provision of this case") shall enter into force on January 1, 2014, and where the liability for property tax has been established prior to the enforcement of the amended Act, it shall be limited to the amendment provision of the former Act, notwithstanding Article 107(2)(5).

D. Whether the supplementary provision of this case is unconstitutional

1) Whether the property right is infringed by a petition legislation

Article 13 (2) of the Constitution prohibits the deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation on the basis of historical experience.The Constitutional Court also ruled that it violates the above Article 13 (2) of the Constitution to impose tax retroactively on the past due to new legislation, or to impose tax retroactively even if tax liability exists.

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 has already been terminated or whether it works for the current facts, and the former can be exceptionally allowed only when there are special circumstances. On the other hand, in principle, even if it is allowed, the view of trust protection in the bridge process between the reasons for public interest requiring retroactive effect and the request for protection of trust will be limited to the right to form legislators.

On or before January 1, 2014, the supplementary provision of this case argues to the effect that the instant trust agreement was concluded on or before January 1, 2014, which is the enforcement date of the amended Act, the taxpayer for property tax is not to change the taxpayer from the truster to the trustee, but to change the taxpayer for property tax from the property tax first meeting the tax requirements after the amended Act enters into force (the property tax assessment basis date is June 1 of each year, and thus, the property tax from June 1, 2014 to the trustee is to change the taxpayer for property tax). Thus, the supplementary provision of this case cannot be deemed as a genuine legislation that acts on or before the expiration of the relevant trust agreement (the instant trust agreement was concluded on or before January 1, 2014, and thus, the reason for imposing property tax is not the act of concluding a trust agreement, but it is an act of holding assets as of the tax base date, which can not be seen as a matter of trust or legal relationship at the time of the enforcement date of the amended Act, as well as a property trust agreement.

Therefore, the supplementary provision of this case cannot be deemed to violate Article 13 (2) of the Constitution, which declares the principle of prohibition of deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation.

2) Whether the principle of trust protection was violated or not

The principle of protecting trust is derived from the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution. If, at the time of the enactment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable, reasonable and reasonable, and if the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation is not justified because the damage of the parties caused by the enactment or amendment of a law is extreme, such new legislation may not be allowed in light of the principle of protecting trust of the parties. On the other hand, to determine whether it violates such principle of protecting trust, on the other hand, to the extent that the value of protecting the infringed interest, the gravity of the infringement,

On the other hand, on the one hand, the public interest purpose to be realized through new legislation should be comprehensively compared and balanced.

The purpose of the amended Act is to improve and supplement the problems that are not able to implement the disposition on default, such as the seizure of trust property, due to the change of the person liable to pay property tax and the person liable to pay property tax on trust property from the truster to the trustee. This corresponds to the basic purpose of the Local Tax Act, which provides for matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, and thereby provides for matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, thereby ensuring the balance of financial resources

On the other hand, the reliance interest infringed upon by the amended Act was newly liable to pay property tax unexpected at the time of entering into the instant trust contract, and accordingly, it was possible to collect delinquent taxes on the instant trust property. As a result, it may be deemed that the amount of property tax calculated pursuant to Articles 110 and 111 of the amended Act is less than 2% of the statutory standard value, but the amount of property tax calculated pursuant to Articles 110 and 111 of the amended Act is less than that of the statutory standard value, and the trustee may recover the reliance interest preferentially from the proceeds from the sale of trust property of the instant trust property under the pretext of the disposal cost of the paid property tax. Therefore, it is difficult

Therefore, when weighing and balancing the degree of damage of trust interests formed before the enforcement of the amended Act and the above public interest to be realized by the amended Act, the latter cannot be greater than the former, and when the amended Act is amended, it is inevitable to create an unavoidable conflict of interest to a certain extent, regardless of whether it is significant or small between the existing legal order. In addition, the damage of trust caused by the change of a taxpayer of property tax on trust property from the truster to the trustee by the truster.

It is reasonable to view that the Constitution is justifiable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim of the limited company specializing in the securitization of Plaintiff Dsber No. 1 is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The claim of Plaintiff Dsbert trust is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yoon-hee

Judges Kim Young-soo

/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 in the name of trustee under 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 bases

(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;

(b) Omission of special aggregate taxation;

(c) Objects of separate taxation;

(i) field, paddy field, orchard, farm land and forest land: 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 cases of public property, the share holder shall be deemed the person liable to pay the share (if no share is indicated, the share shall be deemed equal) with respect to the portion equivalent to the share, and in cases of the owner of a building and appurtenant land of a house, the owner shall be deemed the person liable to pay property tax with respect to the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market price of the building and appurtenant

(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 under the name of trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster (Provided, That in cases of trust property owned by a regional housing association or workplace housing association under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Housing Act in money paid by its members, 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, the partner) shall be deemed a tax manager under Article 135 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes;