[등록세등부과처분취소][공1994.6.15.(970),1734]
(a) Scope of absentee real estate owners excluded from the object of non-taxation of the registration tax for the registration of substitute acquisition due to land expropriation, etc.;
(b) Whether the service of a tax payment notice to one of the persons jointly liable for tax payment takes effect on the other persons liable for tax payment;
A. In full view of the provisions of Article 127-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 127-2(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 96-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 79-3(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993), the requirements for non-taxation of registration tax on the registration of substitute acquisition due to land expropriation, etc. are only one year or more prior to the date of the public announcement of project approval, and there is no need for continuous resident registration and residence for one year or more prior to the date of the public announcement of project approval.
B. The mutual solidarity relationship between the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment is not related to the performance of the established tax obligation, but it is not related to the establishment and confirmation of the tax obligation, so even if the persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment are jointly and severally liable for tax payment, specific tax liability should be established and determined individually, and thus, tax assessment, which is a requirement for establishing specific tax liability, should be separately imposed. Therefore, even if a tax notice was served on one of the persons jointly and severally liable for tax
A. Article 127-2(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 127-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 96-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 79-3(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993)
B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu534 delivered on July 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1446) 91Da16952 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2511) 91Nu1889 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1761)
Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Ba-young
Head of Busan Metropolitan City/Dong
Busan High Court Decision 93Gu1114 delivered on December 29, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers
In full view of the contents and purport of the provisions of Article 127-2(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act and Articles 96-2 and 79-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below held that the above plaintiff does not constitute an absentee real estate owner under each of the above provisions because the above plaintiff is a legitimate owner in light of the content and purpose of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit as otherwise alleged in the judgment below.
2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2
The court below held that since the notice of tax payment (No. 1) stated only "Plaintiff 1 and one other than plaintiff 1" as a notice of tax payment of the registration tax of this case, it cannot be seen that there was legitimate taxation by the plaintiffs 2, since the rest of the plaintiff 1 cannot be seen as being written. The plaintiffs' joint and several relations with the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 18-2 (3) of the Local Tax Act are not related to the establishment and confirmation of tax liability, since it is necessary for each specific tax liability to be established and determined individually, even if the joint and several tax obligor is a joint and several tax obligor, and therefore, it is not a legitimate taxation disposition or it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs 2' legitimate tax payment notice can not be applied for the registration of ownership transfer as a tax payment notice because it was delivered to plaintiff 1 who is a joint and several tax obligor. In light of the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff 1's tax return of this case and the tax return of this case.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)