(b) Persons subject to imposition of the aggregate land tax on trust property under Trust Act (=trustee)

(c) Legal nature of the Gu's Joint Workplace Housing Association (=noncorporate association);

B. If a truster transfers the ownership of land to a trustee and a trust relationship under the Trust Act is established between the parties, unlike a simple title trust, the trust property belongs to the trustee, and thereby the trustee has the authority to manage and dispose of the trust property in accordance with the purpose of the trust. Therefore, the imposition of the aggregate land tax on the trust property should be made against the trustee holding the

(c) The term “Gu Joint Workplace Housing Association” is a federation established by 15 workplace housing associations that have been promoting the construction of partnership apartments in the Dong area of the Gu, and are engaged in activities with the unique purpose of the group called a collective housing construction project. It is deemed a non-corporate association in which the organization itself has the organization as a collective entity and the major purpose of which is determined as a non-corporate association, regardless of the change following the withdrawal from membership

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when the 1,606 members of the Plaintiff Union (hereinafter referred to as the "members") contributed money to purchase the land of this case from the Plaintiff Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. for the construction of apartment, the court below concluded a trust contract under the Trust Act with the purport that the Plaintiff Union transferred the ownership of the land of this case to the Plaintiff Association and will implement the housing construction project of the association members. The Plaintiff Union concluded a sales contract with the above Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. with respect to the land of this case under the name of the Plaintiff Union, and made the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff Association as trustee on July 31, 1989 on the ground that the trust was based on the disposition of trust property attached with the trust trust ledger, and the Defendant imposed the disposition of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff Union actually owned the land of this case as of the assessment basis date of the aggregate land tax. In light of the purport of Articles 234-9 (1), (2) and 105 of the Local Tax Act and each provision of Article 110, the name of this case.

According to Articles 234-8 and 234-9(1) of the Local Tax Act, a person who actually owns land under the Cadastral Act as of the base date for taxation of the aggregate land tax is obligated to pay the aggregate land tax, and even if the aggregate land tax has the character as profit tax, it starts from the property tax of land in a historical aspect, i.e., the value of the land under the current law (Article 234-15(2) of the Local Tax Act) and the value of the land, i.e., the tax base amount, should be the property tax basically. If a truster transfers the ownership of the land to a trustee and a trust relationship under the Trust Act is established between the parties, the trust property belongs to the trustee and the trustee has the ability to manage the trust property in accordance with the purpose of the trust, and thus, the imposition of the aggregate land tax on the trust property shall be made against the trustee holding the trust property. Meanwhile, according to the records, the Plaintiff Association has the name of 15 association members and 606 association members, and it constitutes an organization of the so-called collective housing association and its own purpose.

Therefore, although the plaintiff association is obligated to pay the aggregate land tax as a de facto owner of the land of this case, which is a trust property, the judgment below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the taxpayer of the aggregate land tax, and it is therefore justified.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)