Cases where registration tax under Article 138 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act is not subject to heavy taxation.

If a person who leased and operated another person's factory in a large city owns the same type of factory in the same city and transferred the previous factory in his name after purchasing all the site and its ground factory and its machinery facilities from the non-party who owns the same factory in the same city, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his name, such transfer of ownership shall not be subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act.

Article 138 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be Song Young-gu, Madong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu544 delivered on March 18, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

With respect to the second ground:

In full view of the evidence of the city, on March 30, 197, the court below confirmed the fact that the plaintiff was running a Swewegian plant by leasing approximately 70 square meters of the underground room of the building on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul and operated a Swegian plant for the purpose of transferring the factory, and that the plaintiff was running the Swegian plant from the non-party on August 27, 198, which is the same type of business as the plaintiff's management from July 5, 1968 to the non-party on the ground of the business from July 5, 1968 and 94 square meters of the building on the second floor and its machinery facilities, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff on September 18, 197.

On the other hand, in recognizing the above facts, the court below compared the process of documentary evidence and compared the records, and compared the documentary evidence 2 (factory investigation document) citing the arguments, and it is not submitted at the court below, and it cannot be recognized that there is an illegality in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing in the judgment below. The arguments are groundless.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to Article 138 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945 of Dec. 31, 1976) which enters into force at the time of the occurrence of the taxation of this case, when the registration corresponding to the real estate registration of the establishment or extension of a factory in a large city is made, the tax rate shall be five times the prescribed tax rate (8/1,000 of the real estate value) under Article 131 of the same Act. Under Article 102 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Act No. 839 of Dec. 31, 1976), the "construction of a factory" means the construction of a factory in a large city other than the purpose of relocation of the factory within the same large city, but the new construction of a new factory within the scope of 10/100 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is excluded from the new construction of a factory within the scope of 20/100 of the Act.

Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the related Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the establishment or transfer of a novel factory.

The essay is groundless.

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.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)