[등록세부과처분취소][집31(6)특,70;공1984.1.15.(720) 119]
Whether a mutual savings bank is subject to an excess of the registration tax where the mutual savings bank has sold the loan at a voluntary auction to collect the loan;
The registration of real estate acquired by the juristic person after its incorporation in a large city subject to heavy registration tax refers to the registration of acquisition of real estate which is continuously and regularly used as a fixed property by the juristic person, such as office, factory, warehouse, etc. which are required for the business of the juristic person for the business of the juristic person. Therefore, the registration of real estate transfer acquired by the auction cannot be deemed as the registration of real estate acquisition to be directly used for the business of the plaintiff (mutual savings and finance company) in order to recover and prevent bad debts arising in connection with the credit lending business of the plaintiff
Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 79Nu73 Delivered on June 26, 1979
Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd.);
The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu169 delivered on July 13, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, real estate registration subject to imposition of registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the registration of real estate acquisition with fixed property directly used for the business continuously and regularly as the office or factory, warehouse, storage, etc. which is required for the corporation to carry out its business. In this case, considering the fact-finding evidence, the plaintiff made a registration of creation of collateral security on the real estate of this case which is owned by the non-party 1 while lending money to the non-party 1, but the above non-party did not repay the above loan, the court below decided that the plaintiff acquired the decision of commencement of auction on January 5, 1981 and sold it to the non-party 3 on July 30 of the same year after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on May 22 of the same year. Thus, the plaintiff's acquisition of real estate of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful for the plaintiff's disposal of the real estate of this case.
In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Local Tax Act or by omitting judgment, as otherwise pointed out. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)