Where a truster recovers ownership by cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the trustee due to the cancellation of title trust, whether it constitutes acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax under the former Local Tax Act (affirmative)

Acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that takes advantage of the fact that the acquisition of goods is an act of acquiring goods and imposes a tax by recognizing the ability to pay taxes. The acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax refers to all cases actually acquired through dancing that satisfies the substantial requirements for the acquisition of ownership of the relevant real estate. It does not necessarily mean that the acquisition of ownership does not necessarily necessarily go through the formalities of the registration of transfer of ownership. In cases where the ownership is cancelled on the ground of the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate made to a trustee from a truster under a title trust, thereby, the ownership of the relevant real estate transferred to the trustee in an external relationship under a title trust is restored to the truster and the truster newly acquires the ownership. Thus, this constitutes the acquisition of real estate as referred to in Articles 105 (1) and 104 subparagraph 8 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 199

Articles 104 subparag. 8 and 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 197)

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 902) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8114 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1943) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1041 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1910)

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Yoon Sejong-ri et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na53412 delivered on February 11, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a person who acquires real estate, etc., and Article 104 (8) of the same Act provides that "acquisition" means sale, exchange, inheritance, donation, contribution, investment in kind to a corporation, construction, reclamation of public waters, creation of land through reclamation, and any other similar acquisition, regardless of whether it is an original acquisition, acquisition by succession, or free of charge. Thus, acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that recognizes the acquisition of goods itself and imposes tax by recognizing the ability to pay for the acquisition tax. The acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition tax refers to all cases actually acquired by meeting the actual requirements for the acquisition of ownership of the real estate, and it does not refer to cases where ownership transfer registration is necessarily made through the acquisition of ownership, and it does not refer to cases where it goes through the form of ownership transfer registration.

If the registration of ownership transfer of real estate made to a trustee from a truster under a title trust is cancelled on the ground of the termination thereof, the ownership of the relevant real estate transferred to the trustee in an external relationship by the title trust shall be restored to the truster, and thus, this constitutes the acquisition of real estate under the provisions of the above Local Tax Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff, the truster, cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of real estate in the future of the trustee due to the cancellation of the title trust, constitutes the acquisition of real estate, is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the "acquisition of real estate" under the above Local Tax Act or in the violation of the precedents, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The remaining grounds of appeal are on the premise that the restoration of ownership by the plaintiff does not constitute the "acquisition of real estate" under the provisions of the above Local Tax Act, and all of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)