2. A limited liability company specializing in the primary securitization of lubbles;

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff KF real estate trust company are dismissed.

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

A. On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff KF real estate trust company (hereinafter “Plaintiff K”) concluded a real estate trust agreement under the Trust Act (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with a company engaging in real estate trust business, etc., and completed the registration of the instant trust property under the trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) in view of the fact that the additional amount between Plaintiff KF real estate trust company and a private person corporation on and around November 10, 2010, was calculated on the land of 708-23 land of the same Ri, 708-24 land of the same Ri, 778-26 land of the same Ri, 77-6 land of the same Ri, 77-14 land of the same Ri, and 708-26 land of the same Ri.

B. The Plaintiff U2BC specialized in the first-class securitization is the first beneficiary under the instant trust agreement (a person entitled to receive the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the disposal costs, trust fees, etc., from the proceeds from the sale of trust property, trust fees, etc. from the proceeds of the sale of trust property) from the company established for the purpose of taking over

C. In accordance with Article 107(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "amended Act"); hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), the Defendant’s property tax on the instant trust property, the trustee of the instant trust property, 393,750 won on July 5, 2014;

Local resource and facility tax amounting to KRW 298,80, local education tax amounting to KRW 78,750 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and KRW 1,176,170, and local education tax amounting to KRW 235,230 on September 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

신탁재산에 관한 재산세의 납세의무자를 위탁자로 정하는 지방세법 규정이 1993. 12. 27. 신설된 이후 약 20년 동안 신탁재산에 대한 재산세의 납세의무자가 위탁자에서 수탁자로 변경된 적이 없었으므로, 개정법이 시행되기 전에 신탁계약이 체결된 이사건 신탁재산에 대해서까지 지방세법 제107조 제1항 제3호를 적용하여 수탁자인 원고 한국토지신탁에 대하여 재산세를 부과한 이 사건 각 처분은 소급입법금지춴칙 또는신뢰보호원칙에 위배되어 위법하다.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Whether the lawsuit of the limited company specializing in the first-class securitization of the Plaintiff UBC is legitimate

The standing to sue should be recognized in a case where there is a legal interest in seeking a lawsuit against an administrative disposition even a third party who is not the direct counter party of the administrative disposition. However, the legal interest here refers to the case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not include any indirect or factual or economic interest.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff UBC specialized in the first securitization company is each of the instant cases.

It is only a third party who is not the direct counter-party to the disposition. Even if the Plaintiff UB B BC specialized in the first securitization of the trust property of this case owns the preferential right to benefit concerning the trust property of this case, and as a result, the amount of preferential reimbursement reduced to the amount equivalent to the property tax of this case, this constitutes an economic and private interest, and it is difficult to view it as an infringement of the legal interest directly protected under the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the limited liability company specializing in the first-class securitization of the Plaintiff U2C is in a legal position to directly seek the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiff K, and thus, the lawsuit of this case by the limited liability company specializing in the first-class securitization of the Plaintiff U2C, as it is unlawful by a person who has no standing to sue as provided by Article 12

5. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, whether the part requesting revocation of the disposition rendered on July 5, 2014 was lawful

Ex officio, a suit for cancellation must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). However, according to documentary evidence, the Plaintiff’s payment notice as of July 5, 2014 of the instant case was served on July 14, 2014, and it is apparent in the record that Plaintiff’s case was filed on October 16, 2014 after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff’s case. Thus, the part seeking cancellation of the disposition as of July 5, 2014 of the instant lawsuit for Plaintiff’s case is unlawful after the lapse of the filing period.

6. Determination as to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim

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

The main sentence of Article 107 (1) of the former Act stipulates that "any 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 same Act stipulates that in cases of trust property registered under the name of the trustee and registered under the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster

In the case of trust property, the person liable for payment of the property tax is defined as the truster rather than the trustee.

However, the amended Act deleted Article 107 (2) 5, while Article 107 (1) (main sentence) provides that a person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax, and Article 107 (3) (proviso) of the same Act provides, however, that in the case of trust property registered in the name of a trustee under the Trust Act, a trustee shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax for each truster. In the case of trust property, the person liable to pay property tax has been changed from the truster to the trustee, and the purpose of the amendment is to enable delinquent disposition on trust property.

Meanwhile, 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") provide that the above amendment provision shall enter into force from January 1, 2014, and the trust contract entered into before the enforcement date of the amended Act shall be subject to property tax liability as to the trust contract entered into prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act.

B. Whether the property right is infringed by the law of the court below's appeal

Article 13(2) of the Constitution prohibits the deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation based on historical experience.The Constitutional Court also held that it violates the above Article 13(2) of the Constitution to impose tax retroactively or retroactively even if there is a tax liability or tax liability in the past due to new legislation.

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 only intends to change a taxpayer for property tax from a truster to a trustee, rather than to change the taxpayer for property tax from a truster to a trustee, by applying the revised provision on or before the enforcement date of the amended Act (the tax base date of property tax is June 1 of each year, and the property tax from June 1, 2014 to a trustee). Thus, it cannot be viewed as a genuine-level legislation that acts on or before January 1, 2014 (the trust contract of this case was concluded before January 1, 2014, and thus, the reason for imposing property tax is not an act of concluding a trust contract, but an act of holding assets as of the tax base date, which can not be seen as a matter of trust at the time of the enforcement date of the amended Act, as well as the legal relationship at the time of being deprived of the Plaintiff’s property right as of January 1, 2014.

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

C. Whether it violates the principle of protection of trust

As the principle of protecting trust is derived from the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution, the public interest in order to achieve new legislation by stimulating the damage of the parties caused by the enactment or amendment of the former law as rational and justifiable, and the damage of the parties caused by the enactment or amendment of the law.

If such objective cannot justify the destruction of trust of a party, such new legislation may not be permitted under the principles of trust reporting. In order to determine whether such principle of trust protection violates such principles, on the other hand, the public interest objectives to be realized through new legislation should be comprehensively compared and balanced, on the other hand, such as the value of the infringed benefit, the gravity of the infringement, the degree of the impairment, the degree of the impairment of trust, and the method of infringement.

On the other hand, the amendment of the Local Tax Act, as seen earlier, changing a taxpayer for property tax on trust property from the above consignee to the trustee, is intended 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 a person liable for property tax and a person registered on trust property. This is in line with the basic purpose of the Local Tax Act to ensure the adequacy of financial resources of local governments by prescribing matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, and is fully recognized as necessary for

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

Therefore, the degree of damage to the trust interest created before the enforcement of the amended Act and the above public interest to be realized by the amended Act cannot be said to be greater than the former.

In addition, when the law is amended, it is reasonable to view that the damage to trust caused by changing the taxpayer of property tax on trust property from the truster to the trustee is justifiable in light of the fact that the conflict between the existing legal order and the smallest degree is inevitable.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition made on July 5, 2014 and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff U2k's limited company specializing in the daily securitization of the plaintiff's U2k oil. Therefore, each of the lawsuits is dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's K2 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yoon-hee

Judges Kim Young-soo

2) The Plaintiffs stated the date of the above disposition in their application for modification of the purport of claim and the cause of claim as “ October 2014.” However, for the foregoing reasons, the date of the above disposition is corrected and stated as “ September 4, 2014.”

Article 107 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014);

(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 (Sule)

(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 at the tax base date of property tax 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 (where the share is not indicated, it shall be deemed equal 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 on the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market price of the building and appurtenant land under Article 4 (

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following persons as of the tax base date for property tax shall be liable to pay property tax:

5. In cases of trust property registered in the name of trustee under the Trust Act, the truster (Provided, That in cases of trust property purchased in money by a regional housing association or workplace housing association under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Housing Act, the relevant regional housing association or workplace housing association). In such cases, the truster (in cases of a regional housing association or workplace housing association, a member) shall be deemed a tax manager under Article 135 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes;