In the event that an apartment building construction and a sales company goes bankrupt with about 90% of the construction process and the construction work has been suspended, the buyer completed the construction work by sharing the construction cost, but the buyer has failed to complete the construction, and the buyer moves into the apartment without settling the remaining price, whether the buyer constitutes a case where the buyer is not aware of the ownership as provided in Article 182(2) of the Local Tax Act, and whether the buyer constitutes a taxpayer of property tax (negative)

In the event that the apartment building construction and the apartment sales company goes bankrupt with about 90% of the construction process and the construction work has been suspended, the buyer completed the construction work by sharing the construction cost, but the buyer has yet to complete the construction, and the buyer has moved into the apartment without settling the remaining price, in light of the progress at the time when the construction and the apartment sales company will suspend the construction, the apartment is owned by the above company, which is the owner of the building. However, if it is proved that the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder of the sales price was extinguished as a result of the settlement of the purchase price before the tax base date, the buyer can be "the de facto owner" under the proviso of Article 182 (1) of the Local Tax Act. However, if the above company becomes bankrupt and the buyer is under the right holder while occupying and using the apartment, it cannot be said that the buyer's ownership is not known.

Article 182(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and 90 others (Attorney Kim Sung-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 98Nu3167 delivered on April 9, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 182 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "any person who is registered as an owner of property on the property tax ledger as of the property tax assessment basis date shall be liable to pay the property tax: Provided, That if the right of the person registered on the property tax ledger is changed due to the transfer of the right, the execution of the urban planning project, or for other reasons, or the right is not registered on the property tax ledger, the de facto owner shall be liable to pay the property tax."

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiffs were sold by one household of the apartment of this case (hereinafter "each apartment of this case") constructed by the non-party company from the non-party company (hereinafter "non-party company") from October 12, 1989 to November 20, 191, but the non-party company went bankrupt on April 27, 1992 with about 90% of the construction process, and the construction of the apartment of this case was suspended, and the number of buyers of this case, including the plaintiffs, shared the construction cost and completed the construction work, but failed to undergo the completion inspection until now. The buyers including the plaintiffs, did not conclude the agreement on the settlement of the sale price with the non-party company, and they moved into each apartment of this case without settling the balance or part of the part of the sale price.

Therefore, each apartment of this case is owned by the non-party company which is the owner of the apartment of this case, in view of the progress at the time of suspending the construction. However, if it is proved that the obligation of the plaintiffs to pay the remainder of the purchase price was extinguished as a result of the settlement of the purchase price before the tax base date of this case, the plaintiffs can become "the de facto owner" under the proviso of Article 182 (1) of the Act. However, as alleged by the defendant, the non-party company becomes bankrupt, and the existence of the apartment of this case was lost due to its bankruptcy, or the plaintiffs were in possession and use of the apartment of this case while the plaintiffs occupied and used the apartment of this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the ownership is not known to the owner."

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a taxpayer of property tax under Article 182 (2) of the Local Tax Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)