2. A limited liability company specializing in genetic dypology, third-party securitization;

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff Han Bank are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(a) On April 20, 2012, the central corporation: (a) on April 20, 201, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Bomun-dong 7, 137, 15.2

The transfer of ownership, etc. has been completed with respect to the building of gas stations on the same 138 square meters of the same 135.6 square meters, and each of the above above above ground, and on the same day, the plaintiff Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff bank") entered into a real estate trust agreement under the Trust Act with respect to each of the above real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement of this case", and "property of this case") and completed the registration of trust with the plaintiff bank as the trustee.

B. Under the Act on Asset-Backed Securitization, the first beneficiary under the instant trust agreement is entitled to receive the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the disposal costs and trust fees, etc. from the proceeds of realizing trust assets, and the claims of senior right holders, from the proceeds of realizing trust assets (the person entitled to receive the repayment of the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount after deducting the disposal costs and trust fees, etc. from the proceeds of realizing trust assets)

C. In accordance with Article 107(1)3 of the Revised Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Local Tax Act"), Article 107(1)3 of the Revised Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "property tax provisions of this case") and the main sentence of Article 1 and Article 17(1) of the Addenda (hereinafter referred to as "the Addenda provisions of each of the above supplementary provisions"), the Plaintiff bank, the trustee of the instant trust assets of this case.

On July 10, 2014, property tax on a building in 2014, KRW 59,450, KRW 335,690, KRW 514,830, and local education tax 119,890, and KRW 2,182,340, and KRW 1,07,050, respectively, imposed and notified property tax on land in 2014, KRW 5,035,270, September 10, 2014; and KRW 2,182,340, and local education tax 1,07,050 (hereinafter referred to as “instant first disposition”); and KRW 2,00, which was imposed on September 10, 2014; and each of the instant dispositions collectively referred to as “instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4 (if there are provisional numbers, including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. As to the plaintiff special purpose company's lawsuit

The instant disposition was made against the Plaintiff bank, and the Plaintiff special purpose company is a third party who is not the other party to the instant disposition. Even if the Plaintiff special purpose company holds preferential rights in the trust property of this case, and as a result, the Plaintiff special purpose company suffers disadvantages as to the amount equivalent to the property tax of this case, this constitutes economic and factual interests, and it does not constitute infringement of legal interests protected under the Local Tax Act, etc. If the Plaintiff special purpose company expands standing to sue to the Plaintiff special purpose company, it would result in granting standing to sue to the other party to the tax disposition or to the persons who hold preferential rights to payment in relation to the object of taxation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff special purpose company’s revocation of the instant disposition itself made against the Plaintiff bank, separate from seeking methods such as claiming preferential rights to payment in relation to the realization procedure of trust property.

Since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s special purpose company is a legal status entitled to seek contact, the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff special purpose company is unlawful.

B. As to the claim for revocation of No. 1 of the Plaintiff Bank’s lawsuit

A revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date the Plaintiff bank becomes aware of the disposition (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). According to the purport of the entire entries and arguments in Articles 20(2) and 20(3) of the Act, the Plaintiff bank may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff bank received a tax payment notice of the instant disposition on July 14, 2014. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on October 17, 2014 when 90 days have passed since the lawsuit was filed on October 17, 2014, the part of the claim for revocation of the instant first disposition among the lawsuit of the Plaintiff bank is unlawful. The Defendant’s main safety objection pointing this out is justified.

4. Whether the second disposition of this case is legitimate

(a) Details of amendments to the Local Tax Act;

The main text of Article 107(1) of the former Act provides that a person who actually owns property as of the property as of the property tax assessment basis date shall be liable to pay property tax, and Article 107(2)5 of the former Act provides that "in the case of trust property which is not in accordance with paragraph (1) and registered under the name of the trustee in accordance with the Trust Act, the truster shall be liable to pay property tax."

However, the amended Act deleted Article 107 (2) 5, while Article 107 (1) (main sentence) provides that a person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax, and Article 107 (1) (proviso) (3) of the Property Tax Act provides, however, that in the case of trust property registered under the name of a trustee pursuant to the Trust Act and registered under the name of the trustee, the trustee shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax for the trust property classified by the truster.

The taxpayer of the tax has been changed from the truster to the trustee, and its purpose is to enable the disposal of delayed payment on trust property.

On the other hand, the Addenda provision of this case enters into force on January 1, 2014, and stipulates that a trustee, who is not a truster, shall be liable to pay property tax on a trust agreement entered into before the enforcement date of the amendment, such as the trust agreement of this case, shall be liable to pay property tax.

B. Whether the supplementary provision of this case is unconstitutional

1) As to whether a property right is infringed by a genuine legislation

The supplementary provisions of this case do not intend to change a person liable for property tax from a truster to a trustee by applying the revised contents to a case where the requirements for property tax assessment already met before January 1, 2014, which is the enforcement date of the amended Act (the fact that the reason for property tax imposition is not the act of concluding a trust contract, but the act of holding assets as of the tax base date) and property tax (the tax base date of property tax is June 1 of each year, and the property tax is intended to change the person liable for tax from June 1, 2014 to a trustee. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a genuine legislation applicable to the fact that has already been completed.

Therefore, the supplementary provision of this case cannot be deemed to violate Article 13 (2) of the Constitution, which declares the principle of prohibition of deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation, and this part of the claim against the plaintiff bank is without merit.

2) As to whether it violates the principle of trust protection

If, at the time of the enactment or amendment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable and reasonable, and the public interest purpose for the purpose of serving as a new legislation is not to justify the destruction of such party’s confidence in the legislation or amendment of the law, the damage of the parties caused by the

Such new legislation may not be permitted in light of the principle of trust protection. To determine whether such a new legislation violates such principle of trust protection, on the one hand, the purpose of public interest should be comprehensively compared and balanced (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 9Hun-Ba55, Apr. 26, 2001).

The purpose of the amended Act is to improve and supplement the problems in which the taxpayer for property tax on trust property has changed from the truster to the trustee is not able to carry out the disposition on default, such as the seizure of trust property, due to the change of the person liable for property tax on trust property and the person liable for property tax on trust property. This is to prescribe the matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, and to provide for the basic purpose of the Local Tax Act to ensure

On the other hand, the trust benefit infringed upon by the amended Act was newly liable to pay property tax unexpected at the time of entering into the instant trust contract, and accordingly, it was possible to collect delinquent taxes on the instant trust property. As a result, it may be deemed that the amount of property tax calculated under Articles 110 and 111 of the amended Act does not exceed 2% of the current base value, while the amount of property tax calculated under Articles 110 and 111 of the amended Act is limited to the amount that is less than 2% of the current base value, and the trustee may recover the paid trust property in preference to the proceeds from the sale of trust property

The degree of damage to trust interests created prior to the enforcement of the above amendment and the above public interest to be realized by the amended Act cannot be greater than the former. In the case of the amendment of the Act, the interests of a certain degree, whether big or small, between the existing legal order and the existing legal order.

In addition, considering the fact that the conflict between the relationship is inevitable, it is reasonable to view that the damage of trust caused by changing the taxpayer liable for property tax on trust property from the truster to the trustee is justifiable under the Constitution. Accordingly, this part of the assertion by the Plaintiff bank cannot be accepted.

C. Since the supplementary provision of this case cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution, the disposition of this case based on the property tax provision of this case and the supplementary provision of this case is legitimate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits of the plaintiff special purpose company and the lawsuits of the plaintiff bank, all of the claims for revocation of the first disposition of this case shall be dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff bank shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Maap-man

【Korean Constitution

Article 13

(2) No citizen shall be subject to restrictions on political rights or deprived of property rights by retroactive legislation.

【Local Tax Act

§ 107. Taxpayers

(1) A person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the following persons shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax:

3. In cases of trust property registered in the name of trustee under the Trust Act: The trustee with respect to the property classified for each truster. In such cases, a taxpayer for each truster with respect to the property classified for each truster shall be deemed a different taxpayer.

Article 110 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base for property tax on land, buildings and housing shall be the value calculated by multiplying the current base value under Article 4 (1) and (2) by the fair market value ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree within the scope prescribed by any of the following, considering the trend of the real estate market, local financial conditions, etc.:

1. Land and buildings: From 50/100 to 90/100 of the statutory standard price;

2. Housing: From 40/100 to 80/100 of the statutory standard price.

ARTICLE 111 (Tax Rates)

(1) The amount of property tax shall be calculated by applying the following standard tax rates to the tax base under Article 110:

1. Land:

(a) Objects of general aggregate taxation (Omission thereof);

(b) Special aggregate taxation (Omission thereof)

(c) Objects of separate taxation;

(i)former, paddy field, orchard and woodland: 0.7/1000 of the tax base;

(b) Land for golf courses and high-class recreation centers: 40/1000 of the tax base;

(c) Any other land: 2/100 of the tax base;

2. Buildings:

(a) A golf course and a building for a high-class recreation center referred to in Article 13 (5) (the latter part of the main sentence of the same paragraph shall not apply): 40/1000 of the tax base;

(b) Buildings for factories prescribed by Presidential Decree in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities (excluding Gun areas), and Sis (excluding Eup/Myeon areas) in residential areas designated under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and Municipal Ordinances of the relevant local governments: 5/1,00 of the tax base;

(c) Any other building: 2.5/1000 of the tax base;

A Addenda Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2014: Provided, That the amended provisions of Articles 92 (2), 103-3 (4) and 103-20 (2) shall enter into force on January 1, 2017, the amended provisions of Article 123 shall enter into force on the date three months elapse after the date of its promulgation, and the amended provisions of Article 103-29 shall enter into force on January 1, 2015.

Article 17 (Transitional Measures concerning Change in Taxpayer of Property Tax on Trust Property)

(1) Where a property tax liability becomes effective before this Act enters into force, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 107 (2) 5, the previous provisions shall apply.

/ former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014)

Article 107 (Persons Liable to Pay Tax)

(1) A person who actually owns property as at the tax base date of property tax shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in cases of public property, the equity right holder shall be deemed the person liable to pay the portion equivalent to the relevant shares (where there is no indication of shares, the shares shall be deemed equal), and in cases of the owner of a building and appurtenant land of a house, the amount of tax calculated on the relevant house shall be deemed the person liable to pay tax on the portion calculated in proportion to the statutory

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following persons as of the tax base date for property tax shall be liable to pay property tax:

5. In cases of trust property registered under the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster: Provided, That Article 2 of the Housing Act shall apply;

In the case of trust property purchased and owned by members of a regional housing association / workplace housing association under subparagraph 11 in money, the relevant regional housing association / workplace housing association). In such case, the trustee (in the case of a regional housing association / workplace housing association, members of a association) shall be deemed a tax manager under Article 135 of