2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 10% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

(a) Acquisition of real estate by the plaintiff and registration of relocation of the head office;

(1) On August 29, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case with respect to 14,044 m2 ( Address 3 omitted) in the name of the Plaintiff during Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax, special rural development tax, registration tax, and local education tax calculated as follows.

Acquisition tax base of 902,387,630 won 】 (20/100 special rural development tax of 90,238,760 won 】 10/100 registration tax amount of 10/100 x 30/100 local education tax of 30/100 x 270,716,290 x 20/100 local education tax of 30/100 x 270,716,290

B. On March 14, 2007, the Plaintiff newly built and acquired officetels (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land, and reported and paid the acquisition tax, special rural development tax, registration tax, and local education tax of the instant building calculated as follows with the tax base of KRW 229,908,780,818 on the following day.

Acquisition tax base of tax items included in the main sentence x tax base of acquisition tax of KRW 4,598,175,610 x 20/100 special rural development tax of KRW 459,817,560 x 10/100 registration tax base of KRW 1,839,270,240 x 30/100 local education tax x 367,854,040 local education tax x 20/100

On the other hand, on July 12, 200, the Plaintiff established Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 6 omitted) as its head office, and thereafter, the details of changes in the location of the Plaintiff’s head office on the corporate register are as follows. In particular, on August 28, 2002, prior to the day of acquiring the land in this case, the Plaintiff transferred the location of the head office to the Gi-si ( Address 1 omitted) (i.e., the area where the registration tax is not imposed) in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act.

On March 28, 2002, the location of the head office of Seocho-gu ( Address 2 omitted) on August 28, 2002, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) on August 31, 2002 ( Address 5 omitted) on August 31, 2002, Taecheon-si ( Address 5 omitted) on October 14, 2002 ( Address 7 omitted) on Feb. 25, 2003 ( Address 8 omitted) on November 22, 2003 ( Address 9 omitted) on August 17, 2004, Suwon-si ( Address 10 omitted) on March 21, 2006, the number of Dong-dong (No. 35,38,38,31,208, Dong-dong ( Address 2008) on March 21, 2006 may be omitted. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 187458, Mar. 26, 2003>

x. The National Highway L&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N&C”) was established on October 8, 1993; the National Highway Engineering Co., Ltd. was established on Nov. 8, 2001; the National Highway Engineering Co., Ltd. was established on Aug. 25, 2003; and the National Highway Construction Co., Ltd was established on May 2, 2005; the Korea National Highway Construction Co., Ltd was established on Jun. 1, 2005; the Korea National Highway Co., Ltd was established on Jun. 24, 2005; the representative director was the same as the representative director of the Plaintiff; and the National Highway Co., Ltd is the same as the representative director of the Plaintiff’s national highway as its main axis.

(b) Tax investigation and disposition;

(1) Gyeonggi-do and Ansan-si conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from April 15, 2008 to April 17, 2008, and conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was still the head office in Seoul on August 28, 2002 on the registry, but the Plaintiff was still the head office in Seoul, and on March 30, 2007, the head office was transferred to the (dong name omitted) of the instant building.

B. On September 10, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case was made within five years from the incorporation of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a large city, and the registration tax is imposed on the real estate under Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6842 of Dec. 30, 2002) and Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20708 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”) with the registration tax of KRW 3,591,496,540 (this tax is imposed on KRW 2,92,913,790, KRW 590, KRW 598,580), and the local education tax is additionally imposed on KRW 658,410,208, KRW 585,297,585(hereinafter referred to as “the local education tax”).

Article 112(1) and (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8835 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 84-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8835 of Dec. 31, 2007), acquisition tax shall be 15,750,320 won (this tax is 11,69,50 won, additional tax 4,080,820 won), special rural development tax, 1,575,030 won (this tax is 1,66,950 won, additional tax 1,50 won, 575,030 won, additional tax 1,570 won, 575,030 won, and 1,575,030 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 21, 24 to 26 (including each number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On August 28, 2002, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions on the ground that the head office in Seoul was actually located in Seoul, even if the Plaintiff’s head office was transferred to Yong-si as of August 28, 2002 and continued to be permissible thereafter. The judgment on the head office of the corporation under the principle of no taxation without law is unlawful in that it should be determined solely

Shebly, even if the judgment on the head office of a corporation should be determined by whether it constitutes the head office regardless of the registry, the Plaintiff transferred its head office to the time of permission on August 28, 2002, and thereafter, the head office was established at the time of actual acceptance, and thus, each disposition of this case is unlawful. In particular, in the case of the first disposition, the exclusion period for the imposition of the local education tax is five years from the registration date, and the first disposition is unlawful, since five years have already elapsed at the time of the first disposition, the first disposition is unlawful.

Fifth, the Defendant did not grant the Plaintiff any opportunity to submit explanatory materials at the time of the tax investigation, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case is an unlawful disposition that abused the right to taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

(c) Markets:

(1) Judgment on the first argument

The purpose of legislation of the Local Tax Act imposing registration tax on the real estate registration and the real estate registration on the real estate following the establishment of a corporation, the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city, and the relocation of a head office, a main office, a branch office, or a branch office in a large city and on the real estate after its establishment, establishment, and transfer is for the prevention of population expansion in a large city, the purification of the environment, and the balanced development between regions. In light of such legislative intent, the location of the head office, a main office, a branch office, or a branch office shall not be determined simply by the address on the corporate register, but by its substance. Accordingly, the above assertion by the plaintiff that the head office of a

D. Judgment on the second argument

㈎ 먼저, 제1처분에 대하여 본다.

1) Each of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s headquarters as of August 28, 2002, which was listed as the seat of the Plaintiff’s headquarters as of August 28, 2002, there was a temporary building on the ground of “Grain City ( Address 5 omitted)” which was listed as the seat of the Plaintiff’s headquarters as of August 31, 202. The current owner was a corporation unrelated to the Plaintiff. (ii) The Plaintiff did not pay the directors’ expenses while moving its headquarters from 1 to 20, as seen above, to 00, the Plaintiff’s address as of March 20, 200, as well as 20, the Seoul National Highway Engineering Co., Ltd., Ltd. (including number 1); (iii) the Plaintiff’s address as well as 20,000, 200,000,000 won and 3,000,000,000 won and 20,00.

Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s address at the time of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s 3 to 10, 15, 19, 21 to 49, 64 through 68; and (b) the Plaintiff’s address at the time of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s head office to 2,00,000-2, including the Plaintiff’s 13 and 14 (including the number of each office); and (c) the Plaintiff’s address at the time of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s 2,00-si office building to 2,00,000,000-si, which had been used as the 2,00-si office building at the time of the transfer of the 2,00-si office building; and (d) the Plaintiff’s relocation of the 2,000-si office building at the time of the transfer of the 2,000-si office building at the time of the above transfer of the 2,002.

Ultimately, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff moved its head office only on the corporate register to avoid heavy taxation of the registration tax, etc. without actually moving the head office, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s first disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff moved its head office only on the corporate register is unlawful

2) However, during the period from August 28, 2002, when the Plaintiff moved the location of the head office in the corporate register to Gamsi-si, for a period of up to one year from August 28, 2002, the circumstances that can be seen as continuing some business on the second floor located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. In such a case, there is no room to deem the Plaintiff as having established a branch in Seoul and may impose the registration tax on the instant land acquired thereafter. However, as seen earlier, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was falsely changed the location in the corporate register on August 28, 2002. Thus, the exclusion period was extended to 10 years by deeming that the Plaintiff evaded, refunded, or reduced local taxes due to fraud or other unlawful act. Accordingly, the disposition was unlawful since the exclusion period of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land from August 29, 2002 to the limit of 5 years.

㈏ 다음으로, 제2처분에 대하여 본다.

The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice between January 8, 2007 and April 5, 2007, and most of the Plaintiff’s address is indicated as the building of this case; ② the Plaintiff’s address is indicated as the building of this case; ③ among the buildings of this case, the signboards bearing the Plaintiff’s name, including the Plaintiff, are attached; ④ the Defendant’s request for tax investigation was made up of KRW 18,22,33 among the buildings of this case; ④ there were most data related to the Plaintiff’s tax investigation; ⑤ the Plaintiff did not perform other business than the management of the building of this case at the time of acquiring the building of this case; ④ the Plaintiff did not acquire the building of this case from January 8, 2007 to April 5, 207; ② the Plaintiff’s address is indicated as the building of this case; ④ the Plaintiff’s name, including the Plaintiff, among the buildings of this case, was attached to the Defendant’s request for tax investigation; ④ there were some data related to the Plaintiff’s request for tax investigation.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

【Judgment on the Third argument

According to the evidence Nos. 30 and 31, the defendant conducted a tax investigation against the plaintiff on May 2, 2008, and notified the plaintiff on May 2, 2008 that the tax prior review could be requested by notifying the plaintiff that the registration tax, acquisition tax, etc. will be imposed on the land and building of this case. Accordingly, on June 4, 2008, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant on June 4, 2008 the data that his head office was continuously permissible, not Seoul or Ansan. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made each disposition of this case without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to submit any supporting material is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the first disposition is unlawful, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the second disposition shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Choi Jae-han (Presiding Judge)