In a case where the value of the land transferred to a trustee due to the de facto change of the land category due to a trust under the Trust Act, whether the person liable to pay deemed acquisition tax under Article 7(4) and (1) of the former Local Tax Act (=trustee) and whether the same applies to a case where the truster de facto changes the land category of the land (affirmative)

Article 54(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014); Article 55(1) of the Tourism Promotion Act; Article 7(1) and (4) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014); Articles 2 and 27 of the Trust Act

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2395 Decided June 14, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1229)

rink real estate trust Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kang Han-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hongcheon-gun

Seoul High Court Decision (Chuncheon) 2015Nu1002 decided May 30, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 54(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014) (hereinafter “Special Provisions”) provides that “The acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50/100 until December 31, 2013 on real estate acquired by a tourism complex development project implementer under Article 55(1) of the Tourism Promotion Act to implement a tourism complex development project.” Meanwhile, Article 7(4) and (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that “The acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50/100 on real estate acquired by a tourism complex development project implementer under Article 55(1) of the same Act to implement a tourism complex development project.” Meanwhile, Article 7(4) and (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended

Where the value increases due to the de facto change of the category of land the ownership of which has been transferred to a trustee due to a trust under the Trust Act, a truster is not a truster but a trustee (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2395, Jun. 14, 2012). Therefore, the special provisions of this case may be applied to a trustee, who is a person liable to pay deemed acquisition tax, as a tourism complex development project implementor under the Trust Act, may be deemed to have increased the value by the de facto change of the category of the relevant land to implement a tourism complex development project.

2. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant disposition, which did not apply the instant special provisions, was lawful with respect to the acquisition tax deemed to be imposed on the Plaintiff due to an increase in the value due to a land category of each of the instant land, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer of deemed acquisition tax due to a land category change, is a tourist complex development project implementer. Such determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and there was no

3. 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 Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)