[2] The case holding that the statutory due date under Article 31 (2) 3 of the Local Tax Act is not the date of report, but the local government's notice of tax payment for the acquisition tax, etc. which was decided to impose by the local government, in case where the tax base for the acquisition tax and special rural development tax imposed on the acquisition tax and registration tax exempted under the Restriction of Special Taxation

[2] The case holding that the statutory due date under Article 31 (2) 3 of the Local Tax Act is not the date of report, but the local government's notice of tax payment of acquisition tax, etc. is sent in case where the tax base for the acquisition tax and special rural development tax imposed on the acquisition tax and special rural development tax to be exempted or exempted under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is only written

Article 31 (1), 31 (2) 3 (a) and (b) of the Local Tax Act provides that local taxes and additional dues (excluding local taxes and additional dues imposed on property) shall be collected in preference to other public imposts and other claims, but where local taxes and additional dues (excluding local taxes and additional dues imposed on property) are collected from the proceeds of the sale of property which is the object of the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge right or mortgage established prior to the statutory due date, the statutory due date shall not apply to the claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge right or mortgage. On the other hand, with regard to the statutory due date, the "reported tax amount" shall be the date of filing the tax, and with regard to the tax amount notified when the local government determines, revises or determines the tax base and tax amount by filing the tax base and return, the "reported tax amount" shall be deemed the date of sending the tax payment notice, and on the premise that the obligation to pay the concerned tax is exempted, it shall not be included in the "reported tax amount" under the above Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The tax base and tax amount reported by Nonparty 1, who acquired each of the real estate of this case to the head of the Busan Metropolitan City, on December 4, 2000, are related to the special rural development tax imposed under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Rural Development for the acquisition tax and the registration tax subject to reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the acquisition tax of this case is merely limited to the entry of the reduced or exempted tax amount in order to specify the tax base of the above special rural development tax, and it does not have the tax base and tax amount, and therefore, the statutory due date of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case is not reported, and therefore, the court below held that the auction court of this case did not pay the acquisition tax of this case in preference to the plaintiff's claims secured by collateral prior to the above statutory due date. < Amended by Act No. 6291, Dec. 6, 2000>

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statutory date of local tax as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the time of payment of acquisition tax

The defendant's ground of appeal is that the acquisition tax shall be paid by self-return within 30 days from the date of acquisition, so the court below's decision that the registration of transfer of ownership cannot be trusted as not paying the acquisition tax on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership has been completed, but once the registration of transfer of ownership is completed, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time of payment of acquisition tax.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that "in the case of this case, the plaintiff acquired a security right by believing that there is no local tax such as acquisition tax on collateral because of the reduction of local tax, etc. on it, and in particular, "registration tax" should be paid in advance at the time of the registration of ownership transfer, and "if the registration tax has been made in advance, it will be trusted that there is no tax unpaid (registration tax)," and "acquisition tax should be paid in advance prior to the registration of ownership transfer or if the registration of ownership transfer has been made once the registration of ownership transfer, it shall be trusted that there is no tax unpaid of acquisition tax." Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the judgment below, and there is no reason

3. 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)