[재산세등부과처분취소][공1986.5.15.(776),717]
In cases where an investment finance company has acquired real estate at a successful bid by exercising a security right by means of taking away or neglecting defective bonds, whether the registration following the successful bid is subject to heavy registration tax.
Since the real estate acquired at the time by a successful bid by exercising the security right in relation to the act of entertainment, which was caused by the investment financial company, cannot be deemed to have been acquired for the continuous use of the business, even if the land is non-business land of the juristic person, the registration of acquisition is not subject to heavy taxation under Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984).
Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399, Apr. 6, 1984)
Supreme Court Decision 85Nu630 Decided January 21, 1986, 85Nu628 Decided February 11, 1986
Korea Investment Finance Corporation
Head of the North Korean Office in Daegu Special Metropolitan City
Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu162 delivered on August 21, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984) provides that "real estate registration after its establishment, establishment, and transfer" under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to heavy registration tax, means all real estate registration (including registration of acquisition of land for non-business use of a corporation) acquired by a corporation or a branch office, etc. to use for its business within five years after its establishment, establishment, transfer, and transfer. Therefore, real estate registration meeting the above requirements must be subject to heavy taxation regardless of land for business use of a corporation or non-business use. However, real estate registration acquired by a corporation to use for its business without the purpose of its use for the business, it cannot be deemed that the corporation has acquired the ownership of secured real estate as a temporary real estate without the purpose of its use for the business (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu628, Feb. 11, 1986).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff was a corporation established on November 26, 1979 with the issuance of bills and debentures, discount and sale of bills, acceptance and guarantee of bills, and brokerage of sale and purchase of bills, etc. for its business purposes, and the real estate of this case was acquired at a time by exercising the security right in connection with the act of lending credit, but the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the real estate for its continuous use. Thus, the registration of acquisition is not a real estate subject to taxation of the registration tax, since the above land is not acquired for its business, such as the theory of lawsuit, the above land is excluded from taxation of the heavy taxation even if it is non-business land. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the judgment below is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation and application of heavy taxation of the registration tax, as alleged above.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)