2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

For the plaintiffs, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall pay 11,191,460 won, the 1,119,145 won each of the above amounts, and 5% per annum from December 10, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On April 25, 2008, the plaintiffs entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "sale contract in this case") with BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BB") on the 1,186,894,000 won (including value-added tax) for the 166,894,000 won and the 311-1 (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building in this case") of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Cheongdo 166 and 78 lots B B, and paid 210,954,000 won of the down payment and the intermediate payment 276,206,000 won to BB. Meanwhile, according to the sales contract in this case, the remaining payment date of 69,734,000 won was May 16, 2008, the plaintiffs paid acquisition tax within 30 days from the date of full payment or transfer of ownership or actual use (Article 26(2)6) of the sale contract).

B. The registration of the trust was completed in the name of CCC Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC Trust”) on September 28, 2007 after the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of BB as the building newly constructed by BB on September 28, 2007. The registration of the trust was completed in the name of DD Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Real Estate Trust”) on January 15, 2008, before the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the ownership transfer on the ground of the ownership ownership of the trust property on January 15, 2008.

C. On November 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs stated the acquisition value as KRW 1,19,146,180 (=value 1,186,894,00-value added tax 61,630,00-value 61,617,82,920) on November 12, 200, along with a certificate of confirmation of the full payment of the sale price issued by BB to the head of the Shi-ro Office on the same day, and submitted a statement of tax return and voluntary payment for the instant commercial building by calculating acquisition tax as KRW 22,382,920, special tax for rural development, KRW 2,238,290, and KRW 1,180.

D. After that, on December 10, 2008, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 22,382,920 as Seoul Special Metropolitan City tax and KRW 24,621,210 as national tax and KRW 2,238,290 as special rural development tax.

E. Meanwhile, on March 27, 2009, the creditor banks of BB decided to hold a workshop on BB on March 27, 2009, and thereafter, the commercial building of this case sold a new light company on August 26, 2013, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 24, 2013.

F. On December 2, 2013, BB’s representative director was prosecuted on charges of acquiring the sale price of the instant commercial building by deceptioning the amount equivalent to KRW 18.6 billion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul

Each entry of items 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs paid the down payment and intermediate payment to BB out of the sales price of the instant commercial building. Since DD real estate trust, which is the trust company of the instant commercial building, refused to implement the transfer registration of ownership to the trust company and did not pay the balance, BB would be required to prepare for the balance and pay the acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that BB would be subject to the transfer registration of ownership to the trust company, and it did not actually pay the balance of the acquisition tax, etc. on the instant commercial building through a certified judicial scrivener designated by BB.

2) Not only did the Plaintiffs have completed the registration of transfer of ownership for the instant commercial building, but also did not have actually acquired the instant commercial building due to the payment of the balance arising from the instant sales contract. Therefore, at the time of the payment of acquisition tax, the Plaintiffs did not have any taxation requirement for acquisition tax for the instant commercial building.

3) In addition, since the trust company of the commercial building of this case refused to perform its duty to transfer ownership of the commercial building of this case on the ground that the purchase price paid by the plaintiffs was not deposited into the trust company's account, and then disposed of the commercial building of this case to a third party, it was impossible for the plaintiffs to acquire the commercial building of this case.

4) Therefore, the payment of acquisition tax, etc. on the premise that the plaintiffs acquired the commercial building of this case shall be deemed to be null and void as there are significant and apparent defects lacking taxation requirements. As such, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is obligated to pay the acquisition tax amount equivalent to the acquisition tax amount, and the defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to return the amount equivalent to

B. Determination

1) Since acquisition tax on real estate is a kind of distribution tax, based on the fact that it is the transfer of the original goods itself, and imposes taxes on the purchaser who recognizes and imposes the ability to pay taxes, it does not impose profits that can be gained by using, earning, and disposing of the goods, it is subject to taxation regardless of whether the purchaser acquires the ownership substantially complete. Accordingly, Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that even if the acquisition of the real estate subject to acquisition tax is not performed pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to the acquisition of the real estate which is subject to taxation of acquisition tax, it shall be deemed that the acquisition is actually acquired if the acquisition of the real estate is completed after concluding a sales contract on the real estate and paying the purchase price in full, even if the acquisition price had not been completed, taxation claims on the real estate still exists and thus, it cannot affect the exercise of the tax claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201201Du15, supra).

2) Based on these legal principles, first of all, whether the Plaintiffs did not pay any balance arising from the instant sales contract and there was no taxation requirement of acquisition tax, etc. on the instant commercial building.

At the time of filing the acquisition tax, etc. of this case on December 10, 2008, they submitted a certificate of confirmation (No. 1) issued by BB on the same day that they paid in full the balance under the sales contract of this case on the same day, and the fact that the date of acquiring the commercial building of this case is also the same day as seen earlier.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 9, the building of this case is the real estate trusted to the real estate trust company, and BB should have the buyer deposit the sales price into the trust company's account, it can be acknowledged that it was directly paid by the plaintiffs after entering into the sales contract of this case with the plaintiffs. This point seems that the plaintiffs did not have the registration of transfer of ownership to the commercial building of this case from the trust company. However, in light of the purport of Article 120 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, the person who acquired the object of taxation of acquisition tax reported and paid the tax amount within 30 days from the date of its acquisition, and the sales contract of this case also agreed to the same purport, it is doubtful whether BB was issued with the plaintiffs a false confirmation that the sales price was fully paid even if BB did not actually receive the sales price from the plaintiffs.

Furthermore, according to the statements in Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4 1 through 5, the plaintiffs filed a report with the competent tax office that at least KRW 272,306,960 by leasing the commercial building of this case to the other party until December 31, 2012 after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case and the registration of rental business operator was completed on April 28, 2008. However, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs could have exclusively used and profit from the commercial building of this case for a long period of time, even if they did not fully pay the balance of approximately KRW 70 million equivalent to about 60% of the sales price of this case.

In full view of the above points, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs reported acquisition tax, etc. on November 13, 2008 on the commercial building of this case and paid it on December 10 of the same year, and that the balance under the sales contract of this case was paid in full. The statement of Gap evidence No. 5 alone does not interfere with the above recognition.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no taxation requirement of acquisition tax under Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act at the time when the Plaintiffs filed a return on acquisition tax, etc. for the instant commercial building is groundless.

3) Furthermore, as the instant commercial building was disposed of by the trust company to a third party, it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to acquire the ownership of the instant commercial building, and thus, whether the payment of the Plaintiffs’ acquisition tax return becomes null and void is examined.

The plaintiffs paid the sales price in full and met the requirements for taxation of acquisition tax on the commercial building of this case. Accordingly, the defendants' taxation claims on the acquisition tax of this case have already arisen lawfully, and the plaintiffs already enjoyed a relatively long period of time, including the transfer of the commercial building of this case and lease it to others for a period of five years from the date of entering into the sales contract of this case and raising a considerable lease revenue, etc., as seen earlier. According to the evidence A No. 8, the plaintiffs continued to pay the property tax on the commercial building of this case from 2009 to 2013 without objection.

In light of these circumstances, even if it is impossible for the plaintiffs to perform the duty to transfer ownership under the instant sales contract after about five years from the date on which they actually acquired the instant commercial building, or the instant sales contract became retroactively null and void on this ground, it is difficult to view that there is a serious defect in the plaintiffs' payment of acquisition tax or that such defect is evident. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be dismissed for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed for some different conclusions, so the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.