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

A. On July 24, 2002, the non-party 1 entered into a provisional contract with the non-party Gyeyang-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yyang-dong Co., Ltd.") to purchase the 1341.18 square meters of the 1st floor of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "the commercial building in this case") at the price of the 3.8 billion won (excluding value-added tax), and paid 190 million won as the price of the provisional contract to the Yuyang-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yyang-dong Co., Ltd.").

B. Around that time, the plaintiffs and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 agreed to jointly purchase the commercial buildings of this case and divide them into 49 commercial buildings and divide their profits according to their investment shares. The plaintiffs and the non-party 2 invested KRW 100 million each, and the non-party 1 invested KRW 250 million each, and the non-party 1 paid the remainder by providing the above commercial buildings as collateral, with the loans from the bank, and the sales contract was concluded in the name of the plaintiff Choi Jong-sik and the non-party 1.

C. Accordingly, on August 8, 2002, the plaintiff Choi Jong-sik and the non-party 1 purchased the commercial building of this case from Yuyang Unemployment in the amount of KRW 3.8 billion, but the down payment of KRW 340 million on that day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 40 million on August 13, 2002, the remainder of KRW 3.75 billion (including value-added tax of KRW 285 million) shall be paid on October 8, 2002, and the remainder payment of KRW 340 million shall be delivered documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the commercial building, and the real estate sales contract was concluded that the real estate sales contract was concluded that the payment of KRW 190 million,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the above provisional contract payment, on the day of the contract, and paid KRW 40 million on the following day prior to the agreement day.

D. The buyer, Nonparty 1, etc. failed to pay the balance to the Uyoung by the due date for the payment of the balance, and received two extensions on November 25, 2002, and set the remainder on November 25, 2002. The buyer, etc. failed to prepare the balance by the due date, and again requested that the payment date of the balance be extended by December 16, 2002.

E. Around December 2002, Nonparty 1 presented the agreement (Evidence A1) on the sales contract as stated in the above paragraph (c) to Nonparty 3, the office chief of the office located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (certified judicial scrivener omitted), and explained to the effect that the payment of the sales price of the instant commercial building was made in the name of the Plaintiffs, and the remaining commercial building should be offered as a collateral and offered as a loan from the bank in the name of the Plaintiffs. Since the expected date of the loan is December 19, 2002, Nonparty 1 presented that the contract amount shall be reduced to 2.8 billion won, and delegated the management contract as to the above commercial building by newly preparing a sales contract in the name of the Plaintiffs and handling the affairs such as transfer of ownership and creation of mortgage in the name of the Plaintiffs.

F. Accordingly, on December 17, 2002, Nonparty 3 prepared two copies of a sales contract made on December 18, 2002 as of December 11, 2002, on the basis of Nonparty 1’s arbitrary classification of 49 commercial buildings of this case under the name of the buyer, and the remaining 20 commercial buildings under the name of the buyer, and the Plaintiff’s maximum interest rate for the remaining 20 commercial buildings. In addition, Nonparty 3 written two copies of a sales contract made on December 18, 2002 as of December 11, 2002, respectively, with the seller’s each milk unemployment, the purchase price of each one.

G. On December 18, 2002, Nonparty 3 reported transaction in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to Nonparty 4, a business cause in advance, and reported the transaction in order to ensure that the loan is carried out on the following day, and the registration tax and acquisition tax were reported accordingly.

H. However, around that time, Nonparty 1’s notification that it was possible to approve the loans to the Plaintiffs from the head office at the Dong branch of the National Bank branch, which was negotiated by Nonparty 1 in order to obtain the instant commercial building as collateral, became practically impossible. After that, Nonparty 1, on January 18, 2003, notified Nonparty 1 that “if he fails to comply with the due date, he would give up KRW 550 million paid as the contract deposit and intermediate payment, etc. of the instant sales contract, he would give up the remaining payment date by January 30, 2003,” and requested Nonparty 1 to extend the remaining payment date by January 30, 2003, but notified that it was impossible to complete the payment of the balance to the United Kingdom unemployment on January 29, 2003, and was virtually suspended from the efforts to implement the said sales contract.

I. On March 10, 2003, the Defendant issued a tax notice to pay acquisition tax amounting to 31,080,000 won including additional tax, and special rural development tax amounting to 2,849,000 won to the Plaintiffs.

【Ground for Fact-finding: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6-12, Evidence No. 10-5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 4-1, 2, and 4-2, and the whole purport of testimony and pleading by Non-Party 3]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Each payment notice of acquisition tax, etc. issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on March 10, 203 is a collection disposition that deemed that the above tax was determined by the acquisition tax return in the name of the Plaintiffs. However, the acquisition tax return filed by Nonparty 3 upon delegation by Nonparty 1 was not authorized by Nonparty 1 to delegate the acquisition tax return in the name of the Plaintiffs, and thus, Nonparty 1 was not authorized by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the above return became final and conclusive due to acquisition tax and other tax liability, and each of the instant collection dispositions, which were not premised on the determination of tax liability, are also null and void.

B. Since the Plaintiffs failed to acquire the instant commercial building and there was no acquisition tax, etc., which is a taxation requirement for acquisition tax, etc., and thus, the pertinent tax collection disposition on the said tax liability is null and void.

3. Determination

A. As to the plaintiffs' assertion A.

(1) With respect to the acquisition tax and special agricultural and fishing villages tax for which the tax liability is determined by the method of filing a tax return (excluding the portion of additional tax) against the plaintiffs, the above tax payment order is issued as the plaintiffs did not pay the above tax liability as they have been returned by themselves, and its nature is the collection disposition. If the voluntary report in the plaintiffs' names is invalid because it is not based on the plaintiffs' intent, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and thus, the above tax liability has not been determined. In this case, the tax collection disposition which did not premise the determination of the tax liability is null and void.

(2) Furthermore, we examine whether a report made by Nonparty 3, the chief of a certified judicial scrivener office, is naturally null and void as a report made by a person without authority.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 9-9, 12, and 10-13 and the testimony of non-party 3, the non-party 1 negotiated to obtain the commercial building in this case as collateral at the branch office of the National Bank branch office of the National Bank. The non-party 1 negotiated to obtain the loan from the non-party 1 as collateral. The non-party 1 is allowed only to obtain the loan from the non-party 1 who is registered as a real estate rental business operator, and the limit of one personal entrepreneur's loan is 3 billion won, and it is determined that the non-party 3 will obtain each loan under the name of the plaintiff 1-6, and the non-party 3 will not obtain each contract to transfer the right to the commercial building in this case to the plaintiff 1-6, as stated in the above 1-6, which is the day before the date when the contract of this case was prepared for the loan from the head office of the above branch office of the Bank, and the plaintiffs cannot obtain the loan from the non-party 1 to the plaintiff 2.

As seen above, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs are the actual co-owners of the commercial building of this case, and that the plaintiffs knew that the above commercial building was planned to be loaned most balance of the above commercial building price by the bank as collateral, the plaintiffs sought a loan in their own name as collateral, and deliver the power of delegation and the certificate of personal seal impression to the non-party 1 through the non-party 1. In order to provide the commercial building of this case as collateral, it can be confirmed that the plaintiffs comprehensively delegated the business affairs related to the above commercial building to the non-party 1 with the knowledge of all the circumstances in which their ownership is scheduled to be transferred in their own name. The statements of the evidence Nos. 1, 9-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 against the above ratification are not believed.

In addition, even though the plaintiffs were unable to specifically know that they would prepare each sales contract in their names, obtain approval seal from the competent authorities, and based on this, they would report registration tax, acquisition tax, etc. under their names, all of the above acts are ordinarily accompanied by the transfer of ownership in their names, and they cannot be deemed to have exceeded the above delegation scope of the plaintiffs.

(3) Therefore, the acquisition tax return filed by Nonparty 3 is lawful based on the plaintiffs' intent. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion against this is without merit.

B. As to the plaintiffs' assertion No. B

(1) Article 29(1)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that a taxpayer shall be liable to pay acquisition tax at the time of acquiring an object of taxation, and Article 105(2) of the same Act provides that the acquisition of real estate shall be deemed to have been actually acquired even if it does not comply with registration, etc. under the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act. Here, “actual acquisition” refers to a case where a taxpayer fails to meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership such as registration, but satisfies the substantive requirements for acquisition such as payment of price.

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, there are many room to view that the sales contract for the instant commercial building between the plaintiff Choi Jong-sik and the non-party 1 was implicitly rescinded, or that the contract was rescinded by the exercise of the buyer's right of rescission on the ground of the buyer's default, and even if not, the plaintiffs did not pay the balance of the purchase price of the instant commercial building, and thus, the plaintiffs failed to meet the actual requirements for the acquisition of ownership. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' tax liability for each acquisition tax, etc. on the instant commercial building was not established.

(2) However, in the event that an act to determine a tax obligation was committed even without an abstract tax liability even without the existence of such liability, the person shall be liable to perform the final tax obligation, unless the act of confirmation is revoked or it is recognized as null and void.

As seen earlier, voluntary declaration of acquisition tax in the name of the plaintiffs, which is an act of confirmation of acquisition tax, etc. in the name of the plaintiffs, is based on their will, and this is expected to acquire the commercial building in this case as soon as the acquisition tax was filed in advance, and thus the above voluntary declaration cannot be deemed as null and void, since the above voluntary declaration cannot be deemed as null and void, and there is no evidence that the above voluntary declaration of acquisition tax was revoked.

(3) Therefore, as long as the obligation to pay the acquisition tax, etc. of this case was already established by their voluntary report even if the obligation to pay the acquisition tax of this case was not established, the collection disposition of this case compelling the implementation thereof is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion against this issue is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, each of the plaintiffs' claims in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)