[등록세등부과처분취소][공1990.3.15(868),566]
Whether an enterprise which has obtained investment permission from the Minister of Finance and Economy is included in a foreign-capital invested company under Article 101 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) (affirmative)
Notwithstanding the conceptual provisions of Article 2(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986), foreign-invested enterprises excluded from heavy registration tax rates pursuant to Article 101(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986), as well as enterprises registered in the Treasury pursuant to Article 12(5) of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act, shall be deemed to include enterprises which
Article 138(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986); Article 101 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986); Articles 2(5) and 7(1) of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6955 delivered on April 25, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10992 delivered on January 23, 1990
Korea Center, Inc.
The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3200 decided July 19, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Article 101 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) under the proviso of Article 138 (1) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides for a foreign-capital invested company under the Foreign Capital Inducement Act as one of the enterprises excluded from the heavy registration tax rate. Thus, foreign-capital invested company referred to in this context shall also be deemed to include not only the company that completed registration in its finance division pursuant to Article 12 of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act, but also the company that has obtained the authorization of investment from the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6955 of Apr. 25,
In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the taxation disposition that applied the heavy taxation rate of the registration tax under the above Act to the registration of each of the plaintiff's incorporation and capital increase was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff was a foreign-capital invested company for which the Minister of Finance and Economy authorized investment pursuant to Article 7 of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act was not completed. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the foreign-capital invested company to which the heavy tax rate
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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won