1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff Company, which had its head office and factory and engaged in the business of manufacturing leather products, acquired the instant real estate within the relocation promotion zone under Article 8 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act on January 23, 1992; the Plaintiff Company’s representative director, executive director, director, director, and production director of the Plaintiff Company and 101 employees in office and production; on the other hand, the instant real estate purchased in order to establish the contact office for export affairs and banking affairs within Seoul Metropolitan City, is located in the office; on the other hand, one of the three departments of the main office, one of the three departments of the main office, and is dealing mainly with the banking affairs and the business affairs with the receipt of goods from the main office; in light of the purpose of purchase and use of the instant real estate, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff Company acquired the real estate for the business affairs of the main office, and thus, the disposition of taxation of this case was unlawful.

2. However, Article 112 (3) of the Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax shall be levied when real estate for business purposes of the head office or main office is acquired within the relocation promotion zone and the limited maintenance zone under Article 8 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act. The purport of this provision is to restrain the establishment and extension of the head office or main office which significantly causes population inflow and industry concentration within such zone, and in light of the fact that there is no restriction on the location of the head office under the law, the real estate in this case acquired by the plaintiff company located outside the relocation promotion zone and the limited maintenance zone to use the main office as the main office's contact office dealing with some of the main office's export affairs and banking affairs while maintaining its head office, shall be deemed as the real estate for business purposes of the head office. Therefore, it constitutes the case where the plaintiff company acquired real estate for business purposes of the head office within the relocation promotion zone and the acquisition tax under Article 112 (3) of the Local Tax Act. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the real estate for business purposes of the head office.

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-ju (Presiding Justice)