[취득세부과처분취소][공1993.11.1.(955),2831]
Whether restoring ownership by cancelling transfer registration due to cancellation of agreement on transfer contract constitutes acquisition of real estate which is subject to acquisition tax.
The acquisition of ownership as a result of restoration measures to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership based on an agreement to retroactively invalidate the transfer contract which was the cause of the registration of transfer of ownership shall not constitute the acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax under Article 104 subparagraph 8 of the Local Tax Act.
Article 104 subparagraph 8 of the Local Tax Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Plaintiff
The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu30902 delivered on March 25, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that on October 8, 1990, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff as the non-party, under the agreement that the plaintiff would transfer the real estate of this case to the non-party as the non-party after filing a divorce lawsuit against the non-party. Since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case, the lawsuit against the non-party is pending in the court of first instance on November 27, 1991 while the non-party's lawsuit against the plaintiff is pending in the appellate court, the plaintiff decided to withdraw the lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the above civil petitioner and the appeal for the above divorce lawsuit, but the non-party agreed to transfer the real estate of this case to the plaintiff on December 4 of the same year, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party's ownership transfer registration of this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)