B. The essential point of view of legislative purpose in determining the propriety of taxation

C. Whether a heavy taxation disposition of registration tax on the registration of real estate acquisition of a corporation of a market type prior to the enforcement of Article 101 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979) is contrary to

B. Even though the local tax law and Article 138(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 102(2) of the same Act came out from the tax policy aimed at preventing population congestion in large cities and decentralization of enterprises, as long as the law was implemented once the statute was promulgated, it does not change the application of the law uniformly when the requirement requirement is met.

C. In light of the purport of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 138 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979), even before the enforcement of Article 138 (1) of the above Local Tax Act, the registration of real estate acquisition by a market-type business entity under the Market Act is excluded from subject matter of heavy taxation of the above registration tax even before the enforcement of Article 101 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Local Tax Act, so long as the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay heavy registration tax due to the registration of real estate acquisition becomes final, it cannot be deemed that the above heavy taxation disposition

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff is a corporation whose head office is 1-5, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul and whose head office is 1-5 and which has completed the registration of establishment on July 20, 1974 with real estate rental business as its purpose business, and whose head office is 519 division in Seocho-gu, Seoul and its head office is 1-9 division in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and newly constructed a building on the ground of approximately 1,000 square meters of the land reserved for the lease of real estate at approximately 1,00 square meters of the land reserved for the lease of real estate at around 14, 1978, and at the same time, the registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on December 29, 199, and most of them are leased to others. Thus, this building is a fixed real estate which is used directly and directly for the purpose of the establishment of the local tax, and it is not subject to the application of the laws and regulations governing the establishment of the local tax.

In addition, in light of the purport of each provision of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 138 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9702 of Dec. 31, 1979), even before Article 101 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19702 of Jan. 1, 1980) was enforced, the registration of real estate acquisition by the market type of business pursuant to the Market Act shall not be construed to be excluded from the subject of the above heavy registration tax, so long as the Plaintiff's obligation to pay heavy registration tax pursuant to the registration of the acquisition of the building became final and conclusive, the judgment of the court below that the above taxation disposition is legitimate is just, and it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of legal principles like the lawsuit.

2. In examining records, there is no evidence to view that the construction of the building was made by cooperation with the wind that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, despite that the surrounding condition at the time of the construction of the new building did not create a condition for the construction of the new building, on the other hand, it can be found that the plaintiff bears the market establishment obligation at the time of the purchase of the previous land reserved for the market, which is the site, and obtained the approval for the acquisition of the land from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In this regard, the court below's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is just and there is no error in the law of evidence or without the law.

Therefore, all of the theories are without merit, and the precedents of the party members of the novel land register are different from the cases, so the appeal shall be dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)