[등록세등부과처분취소][집38(1)특,360;공1990.4.1.(869),691]
Whether registration tax is levied (negative) where a registration of establishment of a branch is made in the form of the relocation of the head office in a large city (negative)
If a corporation which had its head office in a large city acquires another real estate in the large city and registers the establishment of a branch formally, but in fact, the former head office is closed and the real estate which has registered the establishment of the branch has moved its head office by relocating its human resources and physical facilities, the requirements for heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act are satisfied.
Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act
Attorney Kim Chang-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10635 delivered on October 11, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
The purport of Article 138(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11751, Aug. 26, 1985) is to impose heavy registration tax on real estate establishment of a juristic person in a large city, establishment of a branch or sub-branch, and on real estate registration following the relocation of a branch or sub-branch into a large city in order to prevent population concentration due to the inflow of population into a large city, and on real estate establishment, establishment, establishment, and transfer of a branch or sub-branch. Thus, if a juristic person, which was established in a large city, has acquired another real estate located in the large city in the large city in form and registered the establishment of a branch, but actually has moved human resources and physical facilities into the new location of real estate that was newly acquired and registered the establishment of the branch, the registration tax under Article 138(1)3 of the same Act is satisfied.
According to the court below's decision, on July 26, 1967, the plaintiff entered into a real estate sales contract to purchase the real estate of this case from the non-party corporation, Yangyang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, in order to discontinue a manufacturing business and run a real estate leasing business, which was established in a large city on July 26, 196 as a juristic person, with the view to the previous establishment of the main office, and to close the main office and the clock manufacturing factory located in 277-10, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which is the former main office, and lease and use the real estate of this case to the non-party corporation, who operates the warehouse with the trade name of the unification warehouse, and after completing the registration of acquisition of the real estate of this case on July 1, 1986, the plaintiff moved the head office of this case to the location of the main office of this case to the representative director, and the previous head office did not have any human resources and physical facilities other than the above leased real estate, but it did not have been cancelled by the plaintiff.
Examining the judgment of the court below based on the facts duly confirmed by the court below, it is proper and proper as it shares the same purport with the above opinion of the party members, and the party members pointing out arguments are different from this case, and thus, the judgment of the court below is not in violation of the above precedents, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out in the judgment below. It is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)