The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 15(1)6 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 24, 2015) provides that “The legal provision of this case” is “the legal provision of this case.

Article 834 and 839-2 of the Civil Act provides that the tax rate calculated by subtracting 20/100, which is the base rate for heavy taxation from the standard tax rates stipulated under Article 11, etc. of the same Act shall apply to the acquisition through division of property pursuant to Articles 834 and 839-2 of the same Act. This purport is to reflect the nature of real marital joint property as liquidation by applying acquisition tax rate which is lower than that which is ordinarily applicable to the division of the property achieved by the joint efforts of the married couple through the resolution of marital relationship. In addition, Articles 834 and 839-2 of the Civil Act of this case provide for division of property at the time of divorce by agreement, but Article 839-2 of the Civil Act is applied mutatis mutandis to the revocation of marriage and de facto marriage, and it is reasonable to apply or apply mutatis mutandis to the revocation of de facto marriage as well as to the removal of de facto marriage. The rationale is that division of property with the meaning of liquidation of marital joint property is recognized in light of the substance of the married community (see Supreme Court Decision 9010Meu).