[취득세부과처분취소][공1999.11.15.(94),2355]
Whether the acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax under Article 105 of the Local Tax Act is applicable where the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the real estate provided as security after the repayment of loan is made (affirmative)
In full view of the provisions of Articles 104, 105, and 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), the acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax under Article 105 of the former Local Tax Act is the acquisition of real estate where the debtor provided real estate to the creditor as a security for transfer and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale in the name of the creditor, and later repaid the borrowed money to the creditor and received the registration of ownership transfer
Articles 104, 105, and 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994)
Supreme Court Decision 87Nu581 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1734), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5016 Decided November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 110), Supreme Court Decision 98Da12171 Decided September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2010)
Plaintiff
The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu46803 delivered on May 28, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff provided the non-party and other four persons including the non-party with each real estate as collateral for transfer, and completed each registration of transfer on the ground of sale and purchase under the name of the non-party, and then repaid the loan money and received each transfer registration from the above non-party from the above non-party constitutes the acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax under Article 105 of the former Local Tax Act. In light of the records and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 105 of the former Local Tax Act and the application of Article 105 as alleged in the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu581, Oct. 13, 1987; 98Da12171, Sept. 3, 199).
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 on the bench.
Justices Cho Chang-hoon (Presiding Justice)