[취득세등부과처분취소][공2001.12.15.(144),2589]
In cases where a place of business is installed at the head office or principal office of a corporation acquired in the overconcentration control region, whether the place of business and ancillary facilities are subject to heavy taxation (negative)
According to Article 112(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994, and amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), and Article 84-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), real estate used as the head office or principal office of a corporation in an overconcentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and real estate used as its subsidiary facilities shall be imposed heavy acquisition tax in cases of acquiring real estate used as the head office or principal office of a corporation in an overconcentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act. The purport is to restrain the establishment and extension of the head office or principal office that significantly causes population inflow and industry concentration. Thus, in cases where a place of business is installed together at the head office or principal office, such as
Article 112(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5615, Dec. 31, 1998); Article 84-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481, Dec. 31, 1994);
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Korea Long-Term Credit Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Maum Bank, Attorneys Kim Won-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu2965 delivered on December 8, 1999
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Article 112(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994, and amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), and Article 84-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), real estate used as the head office or principal office of a corporation in an overconcentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and real estate used as its subsidiary facilities shall be imposed heavy acquisition tax in cases of acquiring real estate used as the head office or principal office of a corporation in an overconcentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act. The purport is to restrain the establishment and extension of the head office or principal office that significantly causes population inflow and industry concentration. Thus, in cases where a place of business is installed together at the head office or principal office, such as a distribution company such
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the part of the business site, sugar room, warehouse, etc. among the first and second floors of the building of this case used as the business site and its ancillary facilities of the head office of a bank does not constitute heavy taxation, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the heavy taxation of acquisition tax
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)