2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of the registration tax of KRW 123,169,90 and the local education tax of KRW 24,63,90 imposed on the Plaintiff on July 12, 2010 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On December 13, 200, the Plaintiff established a digital university as a foundation, a foundation, and applied for approval of the change of organization to a school foundation that establishes and operates the Seoul Digital University, a cyber university, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology on June 30, 2009.

B. On October 31, 2009, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology approved the change of the organization of the Plaintiff into a school juristic person on the ground that the Plaintiff was “Sacheon-gu, Jung-gu (Sacheon-si 1 omitted)’s 6 stories and “Establishment and Management University: Seoul Digital University.” Accordingly, on November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff registered the change of organization with the said location as its principal office as its principal office.

C. On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff held a board of directors and passed a resolution on the amendment of the articles of incorporation with respect to the relocation of the principal office to Seoul Mapo-gu Special Metropolitan City Drawingdong (number 2 omitted). On March 3, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the principal office after obtaining authorization to amend the articles of incorporation from

D. On March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Incheon District Court for the registration of the relocation of the main office to the Defendant on March 17, 2010. On March 18, 2010, the Defendant issued a written confirmation of the registration tax (tax exemption) for the reason that the tax amount payable falls under the “registration of the establishment and merger of a school foundation or a social welfare foundation” under Article 127(1)3 of the Local Tax Act and the “registration of the establishment of a social welfare foundation or a social welfare foundation” and at the same time, issued a written confirmation of the registration tax (tax exemption and exemption) for the reason that the tax amount to be paid falls under the “registration of the establishment and merger of a school foundation or a social welfare foundation” to the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the principal office (hereinafter “the instant registration of the relocation”) with the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Drawing-dong (number 2 omitted).

F. Afterward, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff the registration tax of KRW 123,169,90 and the local education tax of KRW 24,63,990 on July 12, 2010, on the grounds of the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, which is subject to heavy registration tax, when a private school corporation relocates its principal office to a large city (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but the said request was dismissed on July 15, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 5 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 127(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that registration tax shall not be imposed on the establishment registration of an educational foundation under the Private School Act. In light of the purport of the above provision and the provisions of Article 138(1)2 of the Local Tax Act, in the case of an educational foundation under the Private School Act, registration tax shall be exempted even in the case of transferring its head office or principal office to a large city.

2) Even if it is not subject to registration tax exemption, the Plaintiff registered the instant transfer in trust in making a local tax exemption decision notified by the Defendant, and thus, the instant disposition is an unlawful disposition against the Plaintiff’s trust in protecting the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010)

Article 127 (Non-Taxation According to Classification of Purposes)

(1) No registration tax shall be imposed on any of the following businesses (excluding objects of taxation under Article 112 (2)): Provided, That where such business is used for a profit-making business prescribed by Presidential Decree, or is not used directly for the original purpose without any justifiable reason within one year (three years in cases of subparagraph 1) from the date of registration or record, or where such business is sold or used for other purposes without using directly for the original purpose for over two years from the date of its use, the registration tax for the relevant portion shall be imposed

3. Registration of the establishment and merger of school foundations under the Private School Act or social welfare corporations under the Social Welfare Services Act;

Article 138 (Subjects of Registration, etc. of Juristic Person in Large City Area)

(1) Where any registration falling under any of the following subparagraphs is filed, the relevant tax rate shall be 300/100 of the relevant tax rates provided for in Articles 131 and 137: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the registration of the types of business prescribed by the Presidential Decree that need to be established in the overconcentration control region (excluding the industrial complex subject to the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act; hereafter referred to as the "large city" in this Article) under Article 6 (1) 1 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, and the registration of the residential real estate (excluding the case where it is not used directly for the relevant purpose within one year from the date of its acquisition without any justifiable reason, or where it is sold without being used directly for the relevant purpose for two years or more) that is acquired by a foreign-invested enterprise under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act for the purpose of selling it in lots or leasing it to its employees, and real estate registration (limited to the registration of real estate corresponding to the ratio of foreign investment) pursuant to

2. Registration of the transfer of head or principal office into a large city by a corporation which is not located in a large city (including the case of increasing capital or amount of investment within five years after transfer). In such cases, the tax rate shall apply because the transfer shall be deemed establishment;

C. Determination

1) Whether the registration tax is exempt

With respect to the interpretation of tax-related Acts, it shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstance, regardless of the requirements for imposition or exemption, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any reasonable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007, etc.). Article 127(1)3 of the Local Tax Act provides that the registration tax shall not be imposed on the "registration of establishment or merger" of an educational foundation under the Private School Act, and does not provide for "transfer". In addition, Article 138(1)2 of the Local Tax Act provides that "transfer shall be deemed the establishment of a juristic person, and the tax rate shall apply to the registration following the transfer." In addition, the purport of Article 138(1)2 of the Local Tax Act provides that "transfer shall be the same as the tax rate applied to the registration following the establishment of a juristic person, and it shall not be a ground for the same interpretation as in

Therefore, Article 127(1)3 of the Local Tax Act cannot be deemed as applicable to cases of “transfer of an educational foundation” under the Private School Act. On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant transfer registration is exempt from taxation is without merit.

2) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the tax authority’s acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has no reason to be attributable to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority’s statement of opinion is justifiable, and what is the taxpayer’s statement of opinion should be trusted and what is the result should be done by the taxpayer, and the tax authority’s disposition against the statement of opinion should result in a violation of the taxpayer’s interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Du10131, Nov. 27, 2001; 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.).

B) First of all, in light of such legal principles, the Defendant issued a notice of non-taxation of local tax (Evidence No. 2) to the Plaintiff that the instant transfer registration constitutes a non-taxable object to the Plaintiff, thereby indicating the public view that is the subject of trust to the Plaintiff as a taxpayer.

According to the relevant provisions, when intending to register or register as non-taxation, the head of a Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment (see Article 127 of the Local Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) shall obtain non-taxation confirmation (see Article 127 of the Local Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act), and does not provide for the notification of non-taxation decision (Evidence 2) as alleged by the Plaintiff. The above notification is specifically stated and the Defendant’s official seal is affixed. However, considering the following facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have delivered the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of the instant case. In light of the above, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the entries in the evidence No. 11 and No. 2 are sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a non-taxation notification (Evidence 2) prior to the registration of transfer of the instant case

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 10, the plaintiff held a board of directors on February 16, 2010 to operate the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Lifelong Education Center (number No. 3 omitted) for profit-making business, and decided to change the articles of incorporation to the same (number No. 2 omitted) and transferred the principal office after obtaining authorization for change of the articles of incorporation from the Minister of Education, Science and Technology on March 3, 2010. After filing an application for change of the principal office on March 15, 2010, the plaintiff submitted an application for reduction or exemption of local tax on the "transfer of the principal office" to the defendant on the 17th of the same month after filing the application for change of the principal office with the Minister of Public Administration and Security on the premise of the authoritative interpretation of the Minister of Public Administration and Security on the 10th of the same month, and the defendant issued the plaintiff a certificate of non-taxation (non-taxation, non-taxation, non-taxation) (No. 111, 20.20).

According to the above facts, although the defendant issued a confirmation letter, etc. of registration tax (non-taxation, reduction and exemption) to the plaintiff regarding the plaintiff's application for the transfer registration of this case related to the transfer of the principal office as above, it can be deemed that the defendant's application for the transfer registration of this case is merely a temporary receipt of the plaintiff's application in consideration of the result of authoritative interpretation in light of the plaintiff's application for the transfer registration of this case and the defendant's request for authoritative interpretation, etc. In fact, the defendant issued the disposition of this case to the plaintiff, which was different from the plaintiff's application, and it can be seen that the defendant sent the notice of decision of non-taxation of local tax upon the plaintiff's request for delivery of data, after which the defendant argued for non-taxation of registration tax, it is difficult to view that the defendant issued a notice of determination of local tax exemption

C) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that there is a causal relationship between the public opinion list and the relocation of the principal office, etc., since the Plaintiff withdrawn the principal office through the revision of the articles of incorporation without the Defendant’s public opinion list and the withdrawal of the application for the transfer registration of this case.

However, even if the notice of decision on local tax exemption or confirmation of registration tax (non-taxation, reduction and exemption) is considered as a public opinion list as alleged by the Plaintiff, the registration tax completion certificate and registration tax (non-taxation, reduction and exemption) confirmation (proof No. 11) were submitted at the time of the transfer registration of this case, and does not include the notification of non-taxation of local taxes. The Plaintiff already transferred its principal office as of March 3, 2010 to the Seoul Digital Lifelong Education Institute prior to the application of the transfer registration of this case by modifying its articles of incorporation, etc. for the purpose of operating the Seoul Digital Lifelong Education Institute as a profit-making business prior to the application of the transfer registration of this case, and concluded a lease contract for leasing land (number No. 10 omitted) in the Seoul Mapo-dong land as of February 4, 2010 (Evidence No. 10 omitted). Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not request authoritative interpretation against administrative agencies as to whether the transfer registration of this case was non-taxable prior to the application of this case.

D) The instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful against the principle of trust protection. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the instant disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted. The judgment of the first instance court, which concluded otherwise, is unfair, and thus, it is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

[Attachment]

Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)