According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when the plaintiff, the main business of which is the construction of apartment houses and the sale in lots, purchases the land of this case which is maintained at the time from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 18, 1978, he shall pay the down payment to 10.30 of the same year, and the balance to 12.30 of the same year, and if the above intermediate payment and the balance are not paid on the payment date, he shall agree to pay the late payment charge at a rate of 20 percent per annum, and if the above intermediate payment and the balance are not paid on the payment date, he shall not pay the late payment and the balance on the payment date of each of the above agreements until February 21, 1980, he shall pay the late payment charges of 1,346,96,059 won to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which include the above late payment charges in addition to the purchase price, the defendant shall determine the fact that there is no dispute between the sale price of this case and the sale price of this case, thus, the acquisition price of this case shall be easily determined by the State or the sale price.

However, the actual acquisition price stipulated in Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act is reasonable to interpret that it refers to all expenses directly and indirectly invested by the acquisitor of the object subject to taxation for the acquisition. Accordingly, the late payment of the purchase price of this case, which is determined by the court below, constitutes part of the above actual acquisition price, which is indirectly invested for the acquisition of this case. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the above late payment charge is included in the tax base for registration tax following the acquisition of this case, the actual acquisition price under the Local Tax Act refers to the sales price determined by the sales contract of this case, and the late payment of the purchase price does not constitute part of the actual acquisition price, and thus, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the actual acquisition price under the Local Tax Act. Thus, there is a ground for misunderstanding this error.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)